It is not an easy task for someone without a background in Chinese culture, including the language and the history, to write about this country. However, this becomes necessary when looking at the Chinese view of the outside world and especially when writing about the emerging Russo-Chinese alliance. There is very little doubt anymore about the reality of such an emerging alliance in the combined West, and rightly so. There is no better evidence of such an alliance than President Putin’s numerous meetings with Chairman Xi Jinping and his recently awarding the Chinese Leader an Order of St. Apostle Andrei Pervozvanny i in Moscow on July 4th prior to President Putin’s meeting with US President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg.

This understanding, however, comes with a caveat–many Western observers and analysts view China as the senior partner in such an alliance due to her sheer size, both demographically and economically. On the surface this is not a unreasonable assumption, but on the surface only. This belief is mostly a product of recent mythologies and false narratives about both China and Russia. It is also a product of misunderstanding the fundamental processes taking place inside the combined West and of the de facto bankruptcy of methods of socio-economic and derivative analyses. Is China an emerging global superpower? Absolutely! But does China know how to be a fully-fledged one? Not yet. China is learning, but unlike Russia, which has been intimately acquainted for centuries with the peculiarities of superpower status, first as a European and then a global one, she is yet to assert herself as a superpower. Those are not easy lessons to learn and they require more than just a huge economy and population.

Yet many in the West continue to base their conclusions on two false narratives:

1. The gross underestimation of Russia’s economy and capability;

2. The gross overestimation of the same for China.

Objectively, the Chinese economy objectively is already the largest in the world and nobody with even a modicum of common sense denies that. But here is the catch: just the size of an economy does not determine everything. Yes, it is very important, but not all that defines the power of a nation. As Correlli Barnett’s astute and empirically proven definition of power of the nation goes:

power of the nation-state by no means consists only in its armed forces, but also in its economic and technological resources; in the dexterity, foresight and resolution with which its foreign policy is conducted; in the efficiency of its social and political organization. It consists most of all in the nation itself, the people, their skills, energy, ambition, discipline, initiative; their beliefs, myths and illusions. And it consists, further, in the way all these factors are related to one another.

Barnett’s concise and brilliant definition received a further (more quantifiable) expansion when Samuel Huntington recited Jeffery R. Barnett’s 14 points criteria of West’s global dominance by the mid-1990s in his seminal The Clash Of Civilizations. Those criteria are sound and present a good framework within which assessments and comparisons could be made. Most of those 14 points are one way or another related to technological development, moreover–they are related to what can be defined as enclosed technological cycles. The larger the number of such enclosed technological cycles, the better. For many protagonists of monetarist economy and free trade orthodoxy, the whole idea that a nation can make something from scratch may sound as anathema. Yet, only nations that can extract resources, refine them and then manufacture a finished, sometimes extremely complex, product are the ones who are real power players globally. Despite some spectacular progress China has made in the last two decades, China, for all her technological advancements still lags behind in some of the most crucial areas that define national power and this cannot be ignored. It becomes especially important when assessing the roles and weights of the parties in this fledgling Russo-Chinese alliance. Take a look at several points by Huntington-Barnett (in the order they are presented by Huntington):

9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;

10. Controls leading edge technical education;

11. Dominates access to space;

12. Dominates aerospace industry;

13. Dominates international communications;

14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry.

This is roughly 43% of those criteria, yet in all those fields China is either a relative newcomer or doesn’t fare that well at all. One of the fields which defines national competitiveness and power is aerospace and high-tech weapons industries. China’s achievements here are not as impressive as many believe and problems with the development of those industries persist to this day.

While much has been made of the first indigenous Chinese airliner, the COMAC C919, with some pundits going as far as declaring this commercial aircraft a competitor to Boeing and Airbus aircraft, this is mistaken. As a competitor, it is not even close. After her maiden flight on 5 May this year, the whole hoopla surrounding one and only flight of this plane fizzled out as was expected. This Chinese aircraft, which had huge problems from the onset, far from being a modern competitor to Western commercial aircraft is a well painted outdated design built entirely with aluminum and it has no indigenous power plant, being powered by Franco-American LEAP engines.

Enter the Russian-produced MS-21. Since her maiden flight on 28 May, this state-of-the-art aircraft hasn’t spent much time on the ground and continues to fly non-stop. It has already completed its first phase of tests and flies for the second phase (in Russian). The MS-21 features a very high percentage of composite materials in its fuselage and has the only “black wing” in its class –a wing made out of carbon fiber with vacuum infusion. Moreover, the new state-of-the-art Russian engine PD-14 is undergoing certification after confirming its high parameters on the tests. Here, the technological gap between China and Russia cannot be starker. Unlike the COMAC C919, the MS-21 is real competitor for Western aircraft. Hence China accepted Russia’s United Aircraft Company (UAC) as a lead in designing the perspective Russo-Chinese wide body aircraft COMAC C929.

The situation is even more unequal between Russia and China in combat aviation, where Russia is simply on a different plane when producing state-of-the-art combat aircraft such as SU-35, whose engine and avionics are a very hot item for the Chinese (and not them only). As with commercial aviation, here China also doesn’t have a world-class jet engine. Recently China took delivery of the first SU-35s in a Russian-version. More are coming, and the same goes for S-400 air defense complexes and other weapon systems. At this stage China is simply unable, unlike Russia, to develop a truly modern competitive combat aircraft. In layman’s lingo, China needs Russia to take her “for a ride” before getting even close to the parameters of modern Russian combat or commercial aircraft, or tanks or, for that matter, nuclear submarines and other weapon systems and sensors. The disparity between Russia and China is there. Yes, PLAN is building its second aircraft carrier and nobody argues with China’s massive shipbuilding capacity, yet, this fact cannot eclipse a serious Chinese deficiency with their own nuclear submarines, which are notoriously noisy and are nowhere near even the third generation of American or Russian nuclear submarines. This is a dramatic weakness which makes Chinese large surface fleet’s even venturing beyond the First Island Chain an extremely risky business when facing the US Navy’s world-class submarine force.

Are the Chinese improving? Yes, they are–they are very smart and capable people with a great history and culture. Their progress is undeniable and commands much genuine respect. Yet, despite the colossal size of her economy China remains dependent, when it comes to a world-class quality, on others and one of the first among them is Russia. It is not a secret to anyone that the Chinese space program is a virtual clone of the Soviet one. The fact that many Chinese combat aircraft look like Russian SU-27s or SU-33s is also not accidental; they are Chinese knock-offs, sometimes with very shoddy quality and capability, of Russian aircraft.

But that is what matters in the modern and highly unstable world. Apart from competitiveness, the ability to reorient resources and achieve a breakthrough in the fields that matter is one of the most important qualities a superpower has to possess. What Russia has achieved both economically and militarily since 2008 hasn’t been lost on the Chinese. China must understand, and there are reasons to think that she does, that in this Moscow-Beijing Axis she could neither be senior nor junior but only equal partner if she chooses to be part of this emerging Axis. But she also has a lot to learn if she wants to be able to convert economic power into military power without any lag. So far, China has not performed well here and quantity hasn’t yet converted into quality. It hasn’t convert in the field that matters most–power. Yes, the world probably will continue to go to Walmarts to buy Chinese assembled iPhones, furniture or toys. But until the world sees world-class Chinese commercial aircraft powered by world-class Chinese-designed and built jet engines, until China can demonstrate her ability to build state-of-the-art combat aircraft or any other weapon systems, until China can claim her equal place in space, among many other fields, any talk about China being a “senior” partner in any possible alliance with Russia is just that–talk. Both Russians and Chinese are keenly aware of that.

China is closer to parity and has greater momentum in all six criteria than you give her credit for:
9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;
10. Controls leading edge technical education;
11. Dominates access to space;=
12. Dominates aerospace industry;
13. Dominates international communications;
14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry.??

According to the Japan Science and Technology Agency, China now ranks as the most influential country in four of eight core scientific fields, tying with the U.S. The agency took the top 10% of the most referenced studies in each field, and determined the number of authors who were affiliated with the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, China or Japan. China ranked first in computer science, mathematics, materials science and engineering. The U.S., on the other hand, led the way in physics, environmental and earth sciences, basic life science and clinical medicine. China is also rapidly catching up in physics, where the U.S. has long dominated. It is spending more than $6 billion to build the world’s largest particle accelerator, which could put it at the forefront of particle physics. https://tinyurl.com/ydeqeqnb.

China is also rapidly catching up in physics, where the U.S. has long dominated

I can tell you more: about 80% of US Ph.Ds in physics are people with Chinese names. I, in fact, know two of them.

ASW Missiles,

Wrong. In fact, overall Chinese ASW capability is not that great precisely because of the lag in a number of crucial technologies, from acoustic (sonar) to non-acoustic technologies.

Hypersonic Space Weapons

Again, US-made false (incompetent) meme.

1. All space weapons are hyper-sonic by definition. Here, China is one of many (and by far not the leading one) nations who have this type of program. In fact, it is Russia which leads this field since launched many times and successfully its maneuverable vehicles.

2. China's actual hyper-sonic missile capabilities are not even in the same universe with Russia's (no, I merely narrate facts and not having seizures from uber-Russian "patriotism"). China has nothing comparable in quality and capability to P-800 Onyx, 3M54 or 3M14, let alone 3M22 Zircon. In the latter case, one has to have materials and fuels which are currently beyond Chinese capabilities. In general, most Chinese missile technology is a knock-off of Russian older programs (such as DF-21). As per Chinese intercontinental ballistic capability--it made a "strange" leap in early to mid-1990s which accidentally coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Chinese taking literally plane load of technical documentation from Yuzhmash in Ukraine and from Russia.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

The SSJ-100 carriers 12 passengers in business class and 75 in economy class. With a range of 4000KM, it can cover a fair distance but the Russians are pragmatic—they understand that people do not like flying “Russian” planes and so keep this model off most European routes.

Russian aviation authorities have grounded the country’s fleet of its newest model of civilian airliner, the Sukhoi Superjet 100. Metal fatigue, a problem usually associated with older airplanes, was discovered in the tail section of a new Sukhoi plane, the Russian regulator Rosaviatsia said Friday.

Safety concerns with the Superjet, Russia’s first post-Soviet passenger plane, emerged soon after its introduction in 2008. Dozens of employees at the Siberia plant were found to have faked their university engineering diplomas.

The SSJ was the first Russian airplane in a couple of generations to gain genuine acceptance from a major airline outside of a Communist nation. Given that status any sort of safety issue, real or perceived, harms the public perception of Russian airliners (already relatively poor in the eyes of Westerners). At the same time, the pre-emptive nature of this AD and grounding is actually a signal of the rising professionalism of Russian aviation regulators, who have historically not had the best reputation for safety. Despite the headlines, this AD could actually be a positive for the reputation of newer Russian jets within the industry.

Are saying "only the West can invent and only the West can succeed?" So nobody should do anything to make themselves self-reliant? The Western colonial imperialists have been saying the same thing since they can sail out of the Mediterranean Sea, they also bad mouthing others to justify the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes they committed as humanitarian intervention too.

How about those toxic secularized sub-prime mortgages and their backed bundled loan portfolios, derivatives and credit default swaps provided by the Wall St. And London financial crocodiles that caused the 2008 global financial meltdown? Shall we stop using Wall St. and London financial facilities? The Americans are so deep in the ideology that they even don't know they have one.

Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to.

China is absolutely correct to be cautious. It is still vulnerable to US attack and still needs time to develop, and has not yet been pushed into a corner by the US. It still can gain by appeasement.

By 2013, Russia on the other hand had already been pushed too far by the US, which had made clear with its military aggression, political interference, and even attempts to subvert and overthrow the Russian government, that Russia had little to lose by standing firm and nothing to gaining from repeating the appeasement of the 1990s.

Actually bad relations between Russia and the West are perfectly in China's interests (it will: 1. Stymie the prospect of any US/Russia alliance, the only potential counterweight to future Chinese hegemony as Thorfinsson correctly points out; 2. A Russia isolated from the West will be more reliant on China).

Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

Excellent observation, Israel. Many people simply ignore a "kinetic" aspect of power. Chinese military is highly inexperienced and operationally are not capable of performing something akin to Russia's Syria operation. Is potential great? Yes, potential is there but much more goes into this than just the potential.

Chinese has bent backwards to help Snowden by letting him stay safely in HK and Macau, meanwhile sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode, while Snowden is not giving any leaks to the Chinese, most likely he is just anti-China as rest of China Hawks in the USA.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists.
He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.
What Obama accomplished is that the economic centre of the world now is between Russia and China.
Trump’s behaviour still can be explained from this understanding.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists. He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.

It was Clinton who was in power in the 1990s when the opportunity for a constructive relationship with Russia was thrown away by exploitative interference and ultimately the catastrophic bombing of Kosovo. It was Bush II who was in office when NATO was expanded into eastern Europe and into former Russian provinces, and even suggested by the US regime for Georgia and Ukraine, "colour revolutions" were instigated in Russian neighbours and allies such as Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, and missile "defences" were pushed into Europe aimed directly at Russia.

All Obama did was to continue the disastrous US establishment policies towards Russia that have been in place since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem is not US Republicans or Democrats, or any particular office holders in the US presidency from time to time. It's a profoundly dysfunctional and delusional (and often deliberately deluded) bipartisan US foreign policy elite consensus.

In August 2009, Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies, announced it will provide electric power generation and distribution equipment for $2.3 billion over 20 years of production.[26] Rockwell Collins and its Russian partner Avionika were selected to supply the MC-21′s avionics.[27] Honeywell, Thales and Elbit Systems supplies avionics with 9 X 12 in multifunction displays, electronic flight bags, synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems The MC-21 will be the first airliner with active sidesticks, supplied by UTC Aerospace Systems.

Goodrich Corporation, also a subsidiary of United Technologies, along with Aviapribor was selected to provide the flight control system actuators.[28] Zodiac Aerospace, Eaton, Meggitt and provide other components.[3] Interior furnishings will come from Zodiac Aerospace, coordinated from C&D Zodiac in Huntington Beach, California. Innovations from Zodiac Aerospace in Carson, California, will be incorporated in the water and waste systems.

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

That is characteristic of Russia’s increasingly insular geopolitical standpoint. The government is pursuing an aggressive resurrection of its commercial aviation industry to counter the influx of Western types to the country’s fleets, against a backdrop of deteriorating diplomatic ties after the conflict in Ukraine, Crimea’s annexation and international sanctions.

“Build it, and they will come” is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes. Optimism over Sukhoi’s Superjet, developed largely with Western technology, has faded, its joint-venture manufacturer reabsorbed by Russia’s military-industrial complex.

There has never been a question over Russia’s ability to produce capable passenger aircraft. But competitiveness is a complex balance of efficiency and risk, and an aircraft that meets all the criteria of form and function on paper will not necessarily convince customers operating in the harsh light of real-world economics.

First flight, and upcoming air shows, might stir a stagnant orderbook dominated by Russian lessors. But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks’ work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo.

The forth MS-21 is going to be equipped with Russian PD-14 engines which are currently tested.

Build it, and they will come” is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes.

Post-Soviet Antonov is Ukrainian and unlike other countries, the Russian post-Soviet government has neglected their civilian aircraft industry for a long time.

But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks’ work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo.

Maybe not world-wide, but it could be sufficient for the Russian market.

Sir, out of a huge load of vitriolic garbage you wrote in your manifestly incompetent post, I will answer only to this:

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

No nation in the world today rivals the scale of fanfares the United States much touted Military-Industrial Complex uses on its technology among which such technological (and operational) disasters stand out:

1. F-35 Program--the most expensive military embarrassment in human history which for projected 1+ trillion of a life run of this aircraft delivered a mediocre at best (in reality--pathetic) performance which is already equaled by Gen. 4++ modern aircraft. Yet, the "virtues" of this lame piece of expensive mediocrity are being touted non-stop in US media.

2. Littoral Combat Ships, for a 460 million dollars a pop US Navy got itself an unreliable sitting duck with nearly zero actual combat capability. It is unconscionable that this ship-class is still being built and more are coming. Now, with attempts to "upgrade" this technological catastrophe to FFG this will be another "abomination" as Norman Polmar characterized it. But no worry, more praises are bestowed on this bizarre product and you may rest assured it will continue its production run.

3. The whole shtick in doctrinal development--a disaster which is not as pronounced for a naked public eye but even more profound and on the order of magnitude costly that all those F-35-LCS-new CVN programs combined--inability to develop realistic and proper military doctrines. You want to see a bizarre reincarnation, even more bizarre than Soviet Party Documents of 1970s, open ANY US doctrinal document (from From The Sea to any other geopolitical or military doctrine) and enjoy a mangled, politically correct, ideological to the absurd degree, mindless anti-scientific newspeak of Pax Americana and think twice after that if you want to "contribute" anything of real value to a discussion, especially by commenting on anything Russia related.

In conclusion: FYI, before West's criminal coup in Ukraine in 2014, Boeing's Moscow engineering office was company's LARGEST foreign entity with 1200 Russian engineers and technical personnel employed there. Many parts such as the wing of B-787 (among many) were designed there. And unlike what you wrote about MS-21, she is a thoroughly Russian-made bird which has practically every system Russian-designed and made doubles for internal market: be it KRET's avionics complex, to aggregates to 100% state-of-the-art Russian made PD-14. Now you may get back in your bubble.

All these caveats are legitimate, and the points made here are all credible and convincing (except the implication that it’s even theoretically possible to “convert economic power into military power without any lag”, but I suspect that’s a mis-communication). The piece is a useful corrective to the usual Russia-haters and denigrators who understate Russia’s importance in the US-Russian-Chinese balance. And in power projection and pure military capability and technology terms, Russia is still the leader as Martyanov suggests.

But nevertheless China is the senior partner in the relationship in two ways. First it has an awful lot more economic clout (it’s not even close – China’s gdp is 5-6 times the size of Russia’s, and its population is nearly ten times Russia’s), and so long as the guns stay silent that is what get things done. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, China is not involved in military action against the US’s proxies, and so long as it can continue to avoid major conflict in the western Pacific and in Central Asia, or in Korea, that will likely remain the case. In this situation the impact of military power is still present but it is blunted. Russia’s military power has allowed it to defend its allies and some of neighbours against US attempts to subvert and overthrow them, and to make some money through sales, but that’s pretty much all.

Second, China’s potential is generally rightly recognised as being far greater than Russia’s, and barring major and presently unforeseeable events China’s military power will ultimately eclipse Russia’s over the next few decades. It’s only a matter of time, unless something happens to change the present direction of events.

This is not surprising, and nor is it any criticism of Russia. China’s present rise is the inevitable and much delayed return to something closer to world historical normal after its disastrous failure to keep up with the European advances after the industrial revolution. It has clearly achieved “take off” in this regard and has partially recovered, but the process still has a long way to go with only the coastal regions even approaching full development. And military power necessarily lags economic power, often by decades. It takes time to build institutions, gain experience, construct large military projects such as aircraft carriers and learn how to use them, and to catch up with cutting edge military technology, and there are often no real shortcuts.

In the long run, China is a potential peer superpower competitor with the US, whereas Russia simply is not, though Russia for certain can stand up for itself. But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US’s fading global dominance until the threat has passed (it may already have passed, but it would be premature and dangerous to assume so).

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

A very thoughtful comment. 3 points in response:1. China's recent rise. Contextually, I think you mischaracterized. Check out Gunter Frank's ReOrient, 5,000 years of history.' Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750. 2. I think it a mistake to think mainly/only in terms of 'Russia' and 'China'. What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence 'Eurasia' or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

They have used our financial system for a while but once they can kick out our BIS-based banks our hold on them will be greatly diminished. Once they both have strong defense, our nuclear threat capacity will also be diminished. Once their new quantum-based internet system goes online, any time now, which is unhackable with any current techniques, our ability to mess with them will be further diminished. Once all the pipelines are in place, our ability to divide and conquer in the Middle East will be diminished. Once the train routes are in place and working well, later on with high speeds between Beijing, Moscow, Berlin and Lisbon etc., the reality of a Eurasian civilisation will be obvious to all. This is the biggest thing that has happened geopolitically since ....... I don't know, but perhaps since the last Ice Age which wiped out ancient civilisations which we know only by ruins which tell us little.

3. Mandarin system. In terms of China's strength, I have been most impressed by their political system's clear stability. I don't understand what they believe in and so forth, nor how fair/unfair/inefficient/efficient they are, but they seem to have presided over the biggest economic and infrastructural transformation boom in world history the past few decades and done so with extraordinary political stability. I am not aware of any equivalent to this in western history in the past millenia. For us a few decades of relative stability is exceptional. I am not sure if America has ever had more than a few years at a time - which means no true stability - though perhaps you could argue we have been relatively stable since after all those assassinations in the 60's and the Deep State Plutocracy has run the regime pretty much without resistance since then, so about 45 years. Perhaps stable, then, but also involving peak and decline with no true revival in sight.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can't get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analysed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilisation right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn't about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the 'Anglo-Zionists' spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US’s fading global dominance until the threat has passed

Very true. The key, right now, is the Russian nuclear capability. If they didn't have that, both countries would have been gone long time ago. No amount of money or production can help if the other party brings a gun to the meeting.

The "other" party is not really the US, though. On the surface, yes - but the real enemy of the planet is the shadow New World Order government. The "elite" in the US and Europe is deeply compromised by an outside agent.

This makes the legitimate point that Chinese military technology lags behind Western and Russian ones.

But for how much longer? China produces far more research on any metric one cares to measure (10x gap on numbers of papers published, almost 20x gap on the Nature Index).

There remains a large gap in aerospace – China’s continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre – but in other spheres it has converged or is close to converging (e.g., the surface navy bar aircraft carriers).

Production capacity does count in a big war and China no longer has any peers in this sphere. China can produce far, far more weapons in virtually every category than any other country. This will matter in the event of a Great Power war between China and the US. It will come off worse in the initial skirmishes but has a good chance of winning the longer war of attrition.

Incidentally, this is one case in which an alliance with Russia will be very critical. With the Straits of Malacca immediately blocked off, China will have to rely on its northern neighbor to keep its military-industrial machine going.

I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets--something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier--import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

There remains a large gap in aerospace – China’s continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre

It is more than that. There are huge issues with design of air frames--they simply, for some reason, lack this ability. Nothing indigenous of any decent, forget good, quality. And speaking of quality--this is the issue across the whole spectrum of Chinese-produced technology.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists.
He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.
What Obama accomplished is that the economic centre of the world now is between Russia and China.
Trump's behaviour still can be explained from this understanding.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists.
He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.

It was Clinton who was in power in the 1990s when the opportunity for a constructive relationship with Russia was thrown away by exploitative interference and ultimately the catastrophic bombing of Kosovo. It was Bush II who was in office when NATO was expanded into eastern Europe and into former Russian provinces, and even suggested by the US regime for Georgia and Ukraine, “colour revolutions” were instigated in Russian neighbours and allies such as Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, and missile “defences” were pushed into Europe aimed directly at Russia.

All Obama did was to continue the disastrous US establishment policies towards Russia that have been in place since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem is not US Republicans or Democrats, or any particular office holders in the US presidency from time to time. It’s a profoundly dysfunctional and delusional (and often deliberately deluded) bipartisan US foreign policy elite consensus.

Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair - Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to.

China is absolutely correct to be cautious. It is still vulnerable to US attack and still needs time to develop, and has not yet been pushed into a corner by the US. It still can gain by appeasement.

By 2013, Russia on the other hand had already been pushed too far by the US, which had made clear with its military aggression, political interference, and even attempts to subvert and overthrow the Russian government, that Russia had little to lose by standing firm and nothing to gaining from repeating the appeasement of the 1990s.

This makes the legitimate point that Chinese military technology lags behind Western and Russian ones.

But for how much longer? China produces far more research on any metric one cares to measure (10x gap on numbers of papers published, almost 20x gap on the Nature Index).

There remains a large gap in aerospace - China's continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre - but in other spheres it has converged or is close to converging (e.g., the surface navy bar aircraft carriers).

Production capacity does count in a big war and China no longer has any peers in this sphere. China can produce far, far more weapons in virtually every category than any other country. This will matter in the event of a Great Power war between China and the US. It will come off worse in the initial skirmishes but has a good chance of winning the longer war of attrition.

Incidentally, this is one case in which an alliance with Russia will be very critical. With the Straits of Malacca immediately blocked off, China will have to rely on its northern neighbor to keep its military-industrial machine going.

I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China’s military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China’s inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets–something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world’s steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world’s largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world’s largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we’re largely unaware of. Of course this is “normal” for a country at China’s stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I’m aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what’s easier–import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and “low-value” activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world’s largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world’s largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

China is far more technically advanced than any other country I’m aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

A question unaddressed by rosy forecasts of US victory over China such as the recent RAND study.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

"While China is by far the world’s largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas)."

Surely the reason that China is producing manually controlled machine tools is that there is a market for them. Not only, no doubt in China, but worldwide. DIYers cannot afford computer controlled machine tools. Even though the Chinese have succeeded in bringing the prices of such down, they are still thousands of pounds more than manually controlled ones.

Besides that, programming a machine tool is worth while if you want to make many of the same object, but if you need one of something it is a waste of time, and needs skills which a lot of small businesses and DIYers do not have.

Then again, if a numerically controlled m/c goes wrong it takes a level of skill and or components, which is/are relatively rare and expensive to put it right. A manually controlled machine is impossible to hack into and much less likely to break down due to power surges.

I do not know how far China is planning for another invasion, but were they to be invaded manual tools would be useful behind enemy lines long after the digitally controlled ones had broken down.

To the Author. This is a great read. Well put together, simplistic enough for non-genius minds like mine, but without evidence of intentional deceptive propaganda. Im assuming you’re Russian, so what gives with the level of increasely realistic analysis I see coming out of Your country? Is is an improvement in education, media, or something else. Thanks!

All these caveats are legitimate, and the points made here are all credible and convincing (except the implication that it's even theoretically possible to "convert economic power into military power without any lag", but I suspect that's a mis-communication). The piece is a useful corrective to the usual Russia-haters and denigrators who understate Russia's importance in the US-Russian-Chinese balance. And in power projection and pure military capability and technology terms, Russia is still the leader as Martyanov suggests.

But nevertheless China is the senior partner in the relationship in two ways. First it has an awful lot more economic clout (it's not even close - China's gdp is 5-6 times the size of Russia's, and its population is nearly ten times Russia's), and so long as the guns stay silent that is what get things done. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, China is not involved in military action against the US's proxies, and so long as it can continue to avoid major conflict in the western Pacific and in Central Asia, or in Korea, that will likely remain the case. In this situation the impact of military power is still present but it is blunted. Russia's military power has allowed it to defend its allies and some of neighbours against US attempts to subvert and overthrow them, and to make some money through sales, but that's pretty much all.

Second, China's potential is generally rightly recognised as being far greater than Russia's, and barring major and presently unforeseeable events China's military power will ultimately eclipse Russia's over the next few decades. It's only a matter of time, unless something happens to change the present direction of events.

This is not surprising, and nor is it any criticism of Russia. China's present rise is the inevitable and much delayed return to something closer to world historical normal after its disastrous failure to keep up with the European advances after the industrial revolution. It has clearly achieved "take off" in this regard and has partially recovered, but the process still has a long way to go with only the coastal regions even approaching full development. And military power necessarily lags economic power, often by decades. It takes time to build institutions, gain experience, construct large military projects such as aircraft carriers and learn how to use them, and to catch up with cutting edge military technology, and there are often no real shortcuts.

In the long run, China is a potential peer superpower competitor with the US, whereas Russia simply is not, though Russia for certain can stand up for itself. But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US's fading global dominance until the threat has passed (it may already have passed, but it would be premature and dangerous to assume so).

China isn’t just a potential peer superpower competitor with the US.

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China’s population is more than four times the size of America’s, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China’s economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America’s–a figure comparable to America’s current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen–completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American “intellectuals” have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It’s often claimed that China’s debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China’s economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan’s bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan’s GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course–witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover–Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain’s ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be “squeezed out” by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain’s world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America’s ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

You're right, of course. None of this makes sense if you think of this "American Elite," as an elite composed of American people who are invested in the future of the American Empire. But then it's common knowledge that most of your elites are at-least dual-citizens of Israel and possibly even the true-believer "citizens of the world," with absolutely no first loyalty to speak of. The elite are pushing the American Empire into a corner for rather obvious reasons. They're selling it out to the highest bidder, and that is most likely China.

The world these "global citizens," want is always going to be one of unipolarity. One in which they can monopolize and profit with impunity. Once America is eclipsed, she'll be disposed of and parted-out just like post-Soviet Russia. Only unlike Russia, she won't have the demographic strength left to mount a recovery. It will be a series of economic looting and civil conflicts until nothing is left in North America but third-world backwaters and historic curiosities.

So on the upshot for Russia, they know with little uncertainty that the American Empire isn't long for this world. On the downside, it's being telegraphed far and wide that China is the heir apparent and the globe trotters are unlikely to dispense with their hatred for the Russian second-fiddle. And with America and Europe more or less destroyed, there will be nobody left to parlay with in order to stall the inevitable conquest of that Eurasian Empire.

Actually, it makes sense for the west to not reconsile with a rising superpower like China.

In order to keep the west running, the west relies on dollar hedgemony. This means controlling the oil in the middle east and it also means neutering any alternative to the dollar which is why the west neutered Japan in the 80's.

Merely allowing China or Russia to exist as an equal would mean the west would collapse, as our entire economy is based on finance tricks.So it is not merely about allowing a peer to come up. If the Russia - China alliance is allowed it will mean the west will fall behind.

I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets--something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier--import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

China is far more technically advanced than any other country I’m aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

A question unaddressed by rosy forecasts of US victory over China such as the recent RAND study.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

This dynamic isn't particularly unique to China and is common not only developing countries (e.g. compare Goa to Bihar) but even the advanced countries. Massachusetts has more than twice the per capita income of Mississippi, and a number of American territories are considerably poorer than Mississippi.

China's high level of sophistication relative to its income seems to be the result of its development strategy which prioritizes the acquisition and mastery of foreign technology. In this respect it is following in the footsteps of South Korea and Japan, and before them the United States and Germany to a lesser extent.

China is now moving past technology theft and into indigenous innovation. Its overseas investment is shifting from commodities into high technology, which the USA and the EU are trying to block.

Too late. The appropriate strategy would've been to apply COCOM controls against China in 1991 and high tariff barriers.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

It seems that this would depend primarily on Chinese willpower. There is no doubt that the USN could interdict most of China's seaborne trade, and there is no way overland deliveries of raw materials (above all oil and coal) could substitute. However, given China's own substantial domestic product and imports from Russia, the country could keep running under severe rationing.

I think we're long past the time in which US air and seapower, even if reinforced by allied forces, can successfully do much damage to mainland China itself (other than, of course, atomic ballistic missiles).

But let's say we defeat China in a limited war through blockade, financial warfare, and perhaps precision strikes on the mainland.

Then what?

China will recover rapidly and massively increase its armaments expenditures.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

A hugely interesting question to ponder, isn't it? judging by the speed with which China buys Russian technology--they do consider such a contingency, but also--this shopping spree answers a very serious question: China knows about deficiencies of her high end weapon systems. She desperately needs (and it is being delivered as I type this) pretty much everything across the whole defensive spectrum--from SU-35s, all types of Anti-Shipping Cruise Missiles to S-400 AD complexes and all sensors and combat management systems which come with it. It is a huge Red Flag.

http://tass.com/defense/932131

And then, of course, today's announcement (in Russian) that Russia will rush IOC for S-500 to 2018.

https://vz.ru/news/2017/7/9/877933.html

This is, btw, huge and it tells us that Russia understands that all of those sold weapon systems will be, of course, copied. Chinese copies, of course, will not be on par, as usual, with originals but even those copies' capabilities will be enough for deterrence. This is a very ally-wise approach and, hopefully, Chinese understand that. In the same time Russia already is readying new generation systems (from T-50 5th Generation fighter to S-500 and others) to go IOC. The news about S-500, however, are stunning.

As per possible naval clash--if PLAN ventures beyond First Island Chain--it will be sunk and not by US Navy's carrier aviation. US Navy's as well as Japanese submarine forces are among top 3 best in the world. They are world-class and better than Chinese counterparts in most important respects. That is a reality.

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to.

China is absolutely correct to be cautious. It is still vulnerable to US attack and still needs time to develop, and has not yet been pushed into a corner by the US. It still can gain by appeasement.

By 2013, Russia on the other hand had already been pushed too far by the US, which had made clear with its military aggression, political interference, and even attempts to subvert and overthrow the Russian government, that Russia had little to lose by standing firm and nothing to gaining from repeating the appeasement of the 1990s.

I don’t think China was “scared” to take in Snowden. China takes the long view: I understand Henry K. once asked Chou En Lai what he thought of the French revolution. Chou’s reply: Too soon to tell…

"Scared" is not the right word, certainly, which is why I used the imo more apt term cautious. There was no need for them to confront the US by taking Snowden in at the time, and no benefit from doing so, whereas Russia's relations with the US were very different.

China takes the long view: I understand Henry K. once asked Chou En Lai what he thought of the French revolution. Chou’s reply: Too soon to tell…

I don't think China was "scared" to take in Snowden. China takes the long view: I understand Henry K. once asked Chou En Lai what he thought of the French revolution. Chou's reply: Too soon to tell...

I don’t think China was “scared” to take in Snowden.

“Scared” is not the right word, certainly, which is why I used the imo more apt term cautious. There was no need for them to confront the US by taking Snowden in at the time, and no benefit from doing so, whereas Russia’s relations with the US were very different.

China takes the long view: I understand Henry K. once asked Chou En Lai what he thought of the French revolution. Chou’s reply: Too soon to tell…

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

After the USA had won WWI, Great Britain did not understand that her days of world power were over.

I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets--something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier--import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

China’s actual per capita income on a realistic system of accounting is a lot higher than the official figure, which makes it less surprising.

In August 2009, Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies, announced it will provide electric power generation and distribution equipment for $2.3 billion over 20 years of production.[26] Rockwell Collins and its Russian partner Avionika were selected to supply the MC-21's avionics.[27] Honeywell, Thales and Elbit Systems supplies avionics with 9 X 12 in multifunction displays, electronic flight bags, synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems The MC-21 will be the first airliner with active sidesticks, supplied by UTC Aerospace Systems.

Goodrich Corporation, also a subsidiary of United Technologies, along with Aviapribor was selected to provide the flight control system actuators.[28] Zodiac Aerospace, Eaton, Meggitt and provide other components.[3] Interior furnishings will come from Zodiac Aerospace, coordinated from C&D Zodiac in Huntington Beach, California. Innovations from Zodiac Aerospace in Carson, California, will be incorporated in the water and waste systems.

OPINION: Can Russia make the MC-21 a sales success?https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-can-russia-make-the-mc-21-a-sales-success-437836/

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

That is characteristic of Russia’s increasingly insular geopolitical standpoint. The government is pursuing an aggressive resurrection of its commercial aviation industry to counter the influx of Western types to the country’s fleets, against a backdrop of deteriorating diplomatic ties after the conflict in Ukraine, Crimea’s annexation and international sanctions.

“Build it, and they will come” is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes. Optimism over Sukhoi’s Superjet, developed largely with Western technology, has faded, its joint-venture manufacturer reabsorbed by Russia’s military-industrial complex.

There has never been a question over Russia’s ability to produce capable passenger aircraft. But competitiveness is a complex balance of efficiency and risk, and an aircraft that meets all the criteria of form and function on paper will not necessarily convince customers operating in the harsh light of real-world economics.

First flight, and upcoming air shows, might stir a stagnant orderbook dominated by Russian lessors. But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks’ work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo.

Perhaps because it will be a very Western aircraft

You mean the Sukhoi Superjet whose components are mostly made abroad (72%).
Most of the components of the MS-21 (roughly 40%) are Russian-made.

The forth MS-21 is going to be equipped with Russian PD-14 engines which are currently tested.

Build it, and they will come” is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes.

Post-Soviet Antonov is Ukrainian and unlike other countries, the Russian post-Soviet government has neglected their civilian aircraft industry for a long time.

But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks’ work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo.

Maybe not world-wide, but it could be sufficient for the Russian market.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists. He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.

It was Clinton who was in power in the 1990s when the opportunity for a constructive relationship with Russia was thrown away by exploitative interference and ultimately the catastrophic bombing of Kosovo. It was Bush II who was in office when NATO was expanded into eastern Europe and into former Russian provinces, and even suggested by the US regime for Georgia and Ukraine, "colour revolutions" were instigated in Russian neighbours and allies such as Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, and missile "defences" were pushed into Europe aimed directly at Russia.

All Obama did was to continue the disastrous US establishment policies towards Russia that have been in place since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem is not US Republicans or Democrats, or any particular office holders in the US presidency from time to time. It's a profoundly dysfunctional and delusional (and often deliberately deluded) bipartisan US foreign policy elite consensus.

Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair - Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

What did China have to gain from harboring Snowden?

Actually bad relations between Russia and the West are perfectly in China’s interests (it will: 1. Stymie the prospect of any US/Russia alliance, the only potential counterweight to future Chinese hegemony as Thorfinsson correctly points out; 2. A Russia isolated from the West will be more reliant on China).

Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair - Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

Excellent observation, Israel. Many people simply ignore a “kinetic” aspect of power. Chinese military is highly inexperienced and operationally are not capable of performing something akin to Russia’s Syria operation. Is potential great? Yes, potential is there but much more goes into this than just the potential.

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times being utterly defeated by foes with tiny fraction of population and economic wealth . This basically constitutes the world longest track record of great nation chocking and failing. China has been in tech and weapons game long enough and the gap seems to persist despite mentioned by you tons of Soviet tech taken by China in 90's. Someone has it and someone just does not and it is always potential. Every great power also had to sleep own dragon to become truly great. I respect Chinese culture and civilizational achievement but I just do not see China as the One knowing their history

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China’s inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets–something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

This is a misconception

China could produce ball point pens and they could produce them 50 years ago, they just couldn’t produce balls at the same quality and cost margin as Japan and Switzerland.

Hence for pen makers it was more economical to import a superior and cheaper component.

The US does not have the capability either to produce balls of the same quality

I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets--something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier--import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

“While China is by far the world’s largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).”

Surely the reason that China is producing manually controlled machine tools is that there is a market for them. Not only, no doubt in China, but worldwide. DIYers cannot afford computer controlled machine tools. Even though the Chinese have succeeded in bringing the prices of such down, they are still thousands of pounds more than manually controlled ones.

Besides that, programming a machine tool is worth while if you want to make many of the same object, but if you need one of something it is a waste of time, and needs skills which a lot of small businesses and DIYers do not have.

Then again, if a numerically controlled m/c goes wrong it takes a level of skill and or components, which is/are relatively rare and expensive to put it right. A manually controlled machine is impossible to hack into and much less likely to break down due to power surges.

I do not know how far China is planning for another invasion, but were they to be invaded manual tools would be useful behind enemy lines long after the digitally controlled ones had broken down.

In August 2009, Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies, announced it will provide electric power generation and distribution equipment for $2.3 billion over 20 years of production.[26] Rockwell Collins and its Russian partner Avionika were selected to supply the MC-21's avionics.[27] Honeywell, Thales and Elbit Systems supplies avionics with 9 X 12 in multifunction displays, electronic flight bags, synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems The MC-21 will be the first airliner with active sidesticks, supplied by UTC Aerospace Systems.

Goodrich Corporation, also a subsidiary of United Technologies, along with Aviapribor was selected to provide the flight control system actuators.[28] Zodiac Aerospace, Eaton, Meggitt and provide other components.[3] Interior furnishings will come from Zodiac Aerospace, coordinated from C&D Zodiac in Huntington Beach, California. Innovations from Zodiac Aerospace in Carson, California, will be incorporated in the water and waste systems.

OPINION: Can Russia make the MC-21 a sales success?https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-can-russia-make-the-mc-21-a-sales-success-437836/

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

That is characteristic of Russia’s increasingly insular geopolitical standpoint. The government is pursuing an aggressive resurrection of its commercial aviation industry to counter the influx of Western types to the country’s fleets, against a backdrop of deteriorating diplomatic ties after the conflict in Ukraine, Crimea’s annexation and international sanctions.

“Build it, and they will come” is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes. Optimism over Sukhoi’s Superjet, developed largely with Western technology, has faded, its joint-venture manufacturer reabsorbed by Russia’s military-industrial complex.

There has never been a question over Russia’s ability to produce capable passenger aircraft. But competitiveness is a complex balance of efficiency and risk, and an aircraft that meets all the criteria of form and function on paper will not necessarily convince customers operating in the harsh light of real-world economics.

First flight, and upcoming air shows, might stir a stagnant orderbook dominated by Russian lessors. But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks’ work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo.

Sir, out of a huge load of vitriolic garbage you wrote in your manifestly incompetent post, I will answer only to this:

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

No nation in the world today rivals the scale of fanfares the United States much touted Military-Industrial Complex uses on its technology among which such technological (and operational) disasters stand out:

1. F-35 Program–the most expensive military embarrassment in human history which for projected 1+ trillion of a life run of this aircraft delivered a mediocre at best (in reality–pathetic) performance which is already equaled by Gen. 4++ modern aircraft. Yet, the “virtues” of this lame piece of expensive mediocrity are being touted non-stop in US media.

2. Littoral Combat Ships, for a 460 million dollars a pop US Navy got itself an unreliable sitting duck with nearly zero actual combat capability. It is unconscionable that this ship-class is still being built and more are coming. Now, with attempts to “upgrade” this technological catastrophe to FFG this will be another “abomination” as Norman Polmar characterized it. But no worry, more praises are bestowed on this bizarre product and you may rest assured it will continue its production run.

3. The whole shtick in doctrinal development–a disaster which is not as pronounced for a naked public eye but even more profound and on the order of magnitude costly that all those F-35-LCS-new CVN programs combined–inability to develop realistic and proper military doctrines. You want to see a bizarre reincarnation, even more bizarre than Soviet Party Documents of 1970s, open ANY US doctrinal document (from From The Sea to any other geopolitical or military doctrine) and enjoy a mangled, politically correct, ideological to the absurd degree, mindless anti-scientific newspeak of Pax Americana and think twice after that if you want to “contribute” anything of real value to a discussion, especially by commenting on anything Russia related.

In conclusion: FYI, before West’s criminal coup in Ukraine in 2014, Boeing’s Moscow engineering office was company’s LARGEST foreign entity with 1200 Russian engineers and technical personnel employed there. Many parts such as the wing of B-787 (among many) were designed there. And unlike what you wrote about MS-21, she is a thoroughly Russian-made bird which has practically every system Russian-designed and made doubles for internal market: be it KRET’s avionics complex, to aggregates to 100% state-of-the-art Russian made PD-14. Now you may get back in your bubble.

This makes the legitimate point that Chinese military technology lags behind Western and Russian ones.

But for how much longer? China produces far more research on any metric one cares to measure (10x gap on numbers of papers published, almost 20x gap on the Nature Index).

There remains a large gap in aerospace - China's continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre - but in other spheres it has converged or is close to converging (e.g., the surface navy bar aircraft carriers).

Production capacity does count in a big war and China no longer has any peers in this sphere. China can produce far, far more weapons in virtually every category than any other country. This will matter in the event of a Great Power war between China and the US. It will come off worse in the initial skirmishes but has a good chance of winning the longer war of attrition.

Incidentally, this is one case in which an alliance with Russia will be very critical. With the Straits of Malacca immediately blocked off, China will have to rely on its northern neighbor to keep its military-industrial machine going.

There remains a large gap in aerospace – China’s continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre

It is more than that. There are huge issues with design of air frames–they simply, for some reason, lack this ability. Nothing indigenous of any decent, forget good, quality. And speaking of quality–this is the issue across the whole spectrum of Chinese-produced technology.

Andrei Martyanov, it is not easy to build an alliance between Russia and China, I am not about falling into the Anglo's divide-and-conquer trap/trick to ruin that precious alliance, nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

Xi delivered a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations as following."We are now living in a rapidly changing world...Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality." Chinese do not believe superiority, we believe win-win five principle of peace coexistence.

China is closer to parity and has greater momentum in all six criteria than you give her credit for: 9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;10. Controls leading edge technical education;11. Dominates access to space;=12. Dominates aerospace industry;13. Dominates international communications;14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry.??

According to the Japan Science and Technology Agency, China now ranks as the most influential country in four of eight core scientific fields, tying with the U.S. The agency took the top 10% of the most referenced studies in each field, and determined the number of authors who were affiliated with the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, China or Japan. China ranked first in computer science, mathematics, materials science and engineering. The U.S., on the other hand, led the way in physics, environmental and earth sciences, basic life science and clinical medicine. China is also rapidly catching up in physics, where the U.S. has long dominated. It is spending more than $6 billion to build the world's largest particle accelerator, which could put it at the forefront of particle physics. https://tinyurl.com/ydeqeqnb.

China is also rapidly catching up in physics, where the U.S. has long dominated

I can tell you more: about 80% of US Ph.Ds in physics are people with Chinese names. I, in fact, know two of them.

ASW Missiles,

Wrong. In fact, overall Chinese ASW capability is not that great precisely because of the lag in a number of crucial technologies, from acoustic (sonar) to non-acoustic technologies.

Hypersonic Space Weapons

Again, US-made false (incompetent) meme.

1. All space weapons are hyper-sonic by definition. Here, China is one of many (and by far not the leading one) nations who have this type of program. In fact, it is Russia which leads this field since launched many times and successfully its maneuverable vehicles.

2. China’s actual hyper-sonic missile capabilities are not even in the same universe with Russia’s (no, I merely narrate facts and not having seizures from uber-Russian “patriotism”). China has nothing comparable in quality and capability to P-800 Onyx, 3M54 or 3M14, let alone 3M22 Zircon. In the latter case, one has to have materials and fuels which are currently beyond Chinese capabilities. In general, most Chinese missile technology is a knock-off of Russian older programs (such as DF-21). As per Chinese intercontinental ballistic capability–it made a “strange” leap in early to mid-1990s which accidentally coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Chinese taking literally plane load of technical documentation from Yuzhmash in Ukraine and from Russia.

I was referring to China's DF-ZF prompt global strike weapon which, from memory, was tested seven times and was successful six times (the second test failed). It was (again, from memory) this string of successes that stimulated both Russia and the USA to recommence their PGS programs after a string of failures. Does this timeline match your recollection?

It is correct to say that it is not a one sided alliance and that in many many ways Russia is ahead of China.

But I don’t really see the significance of the things you posted. So what if China does not have the world’s most advanced military tech? America did not have the most advanced military tech either for a very long time into its history, yet America’s path to Superpowerdom was set in stone much sooner than its military bonifides.

Wasn’t it the cold war of the 80′s where Russia tried to out spend the west in getting the best military tech what bankrupted Russia?

To me, China merely needs a military strong enough to protect herself and nothing more, because China has no plans to engage in military adventureism ala Desert Storm.

So China put all its military resources into missle tech and things like can deny enemies the ability to hurt China. China does not have the means to go toe to toe with Western planes, so this project is on the back burner while they spend money on more important things like High Speed Rail.

To me, Russia sees itself as more of a conventional Superpower. If Russia wants to go to war anywhere on Earth, Russia will have the means to do so. China does not. It merely wants the means to defend itself.

Buying loyalty internally and externally was what bankrupted the USSR. That system was made for corruption, which the KGB under Yuri Andropov and later recognized as a threat to national security. When the Soviet government tried to reform that system it fell apart. The USSR bought the loyalty of Poland and the central Soviet government bought the loyalty of the Ukrainian SSR with capital and other subsidies. Fat lot of good that did them!

It's hard to get a handle on the state of late Soviet era technology. Their avionics and information technology during the 1970s did seem backwards. Getting from there to where Russia is now, with everything that happened in the 1990s was a pretty amazing feat. But part of that impression could be from the secretiveness and control surrounding their technological development.

Russia does not have the means to go to war anywhere on Earth, unless you're thinking of ICBMs.

The Russia – China alliance has always been presented negatively in the west with many reasons why it will fall apart. Including junior and senior dynamics.

To me, this alliance is neither a coming together of blood brothers nor is it merely an alliance born out of convenience. It is somewhere in between, but it is also something deeper than people understand.

The weaknesses in China; such as military tech, space, land based energy source, are perfectly complemented by Russia. Meanwhile the weaknesses of Russia; which include access to capital that the west cannot steal, a reliable customer for its energy sources, and a production base for the things Russia needs incase other countries won’t trade with her, are perfectly complemented by China.

If both parties don’t break the alliance, there is literally no way to kill off either country.

The One Belt One Road project is something that both countries view as vital to its future. Viewed from the Western persoective, this spells the end of Western hedgemony as the West will not be able to control Eurasia. Something that both China and Russia need merely to survive.

Andrei,
Why aren’t you publishing more articles here? A lot of us like your presentions. Please don’t put off more writing because of a few comments that are highly disagreeable, all good writers get that. Please consider what I’ve said.

Joe, by no means this is dictated by my avoidance of disagreeable comments--far from it, often I enjoy them. But I also post in my blog, I also post in US Naval Institute Blog, I am also working on another article for USNI Proceedings, plus I am literally busting my butt on the outline of the book--it is long pass any reasonable delays for me and I finally found resolve and focus. But I will continue to post on Unz Review, which I consider one of the most important English language alt-right resource. But thank you for your high praise of my work.

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

You’re right, of course. None of this makes sense if you think of this “American Elite,” as an elite composed of American people who are invested in the future of the American Empire. But then it’s common knowledge that most of your elites are at-least dual-citizens of Israel and possibly even the true-believer “citizens of the world,” with absolutely no first loyalty to speak of. The elite are pushing the American Empire into a corner for rather obvious reasons. They’re selling it out to the highest bidder, and that is most likely China.

The world these “global citizens,” want is always going to be one of unipolarity. One in which they can monopolize and profit with impunity. Once America is eclipsed, she’ll be disposed of and parted-out just like post-Soviet Russia. Only unlike Russia, she won’t have the demographic strength left to mount a recovery. It will be a series of economic looting and civil conflicts until nothing is left in North America but third-world backwaters and historic curiosities.

So on the upshot for Russia, they know with little uncertainty that the American Empire isn’t long for this world. On the downside, it’s being telegraphed far and wide that China is the heir apparent and the globe trotters are unlikely to dispense with their hatred for the Russian second-fiddle. And with America and Europe more or less destroyed, there will be nobody left to parlay with in order to stall the inevitable conquest of that Eurasian Empire.

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed.

Actually, it makes sense for the west to not reconsile with a rising superpower like China.

In order to keep the west running, the west relies on dollar hedgemony. This means controlling the oil in the middle east and it also means neutering any alternative to the dollar which is why the west neutered Japan in the 80′s.

Merely allowing China or Russia to exist as an equal would mean the west would collapse, as our entire economy is based on finance tricks.So it is not merely about allowing a peer to come up. If the Russia – China alliance is allowed it will mean the west will fall behind.

1. The West's economic power is solely based on Dollar hegemony and "financial tricks"

2. The West neutered Japan

Dollar hegemony, for starters, only privileges the United States. The rest of the West deals with this "exorbitant privilege" just as non-Western countries do. In fact, Dollar hegemony arguably privileges China more than most Western countries as it can use its enormous Dollar reserves to purchase anything, anywhere.

And while Dollar hegemony affords the United States exorbitant privilege, the cost of this is a chronically overvalued currency leading a too small manufacturing sector and persistent current account deficits.

The economy of the West is most certainly not just financial tricks. The US economy for instance is the #2 industrial power, #2 manufacturing power, #1 service exporter (strangely foreigners seem to value banking services), #1 tech power, and its service sector is the world's most productive.

Care to explain how exactly the West neutered Japan? Japan's GDP per capita has continuously expanded in the past 30 years. Strange to allow a neutered country to purchase the Financial Times.

Lastly, the Russia-China alliance was effectively CREATED by the West owing to its entirely irrational hostility to Russia, which from 1992-2014 persistently sought integration and partnership with the West.

Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

Excellent observation, Israel. Many people simply ignore a "kinetic" aspect of power. Chinese military is highly inexperienced and operationally are not capable of performing something akin to Russia's Syria operation. Is potential great? Yes, potential is there but much more goes into this than just the potential.

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times being utterly defeated by foes with tiny fraction of population and economic wealth . This basically constitutes the world longest track record of great nation chocking and failing. China has been in tech and weapons game long enough and the gap seems to persist despite mentioned by you tons of Soviet tech taken by China in 90′s. Someone has it and someone just does not and it is always potential. Every great power also had to sleep own dragon to become truly great. I respect Chinese culture and civilizational achievement but I just do not see China as the One knowing their history

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times

Except that simply isn't true. China has repeatedly been the "number one" globally, it just hasn't had that status since the technological advances stemming from Europe's innovations a few hundred years ago made actual global empires possible. And that's solely because, for various reasons, it has never caught up with those innovations and their ramifications - until now.

As I noted above, the likely rise of China to global number one is not something new, it's in one sense just a return to what was often the normal condition in the world, prior to the C18th or so.

There's no reason to be upset at facing that self-evident reality. It doesn't disrespect the real achievements of nations like Russia and Britain. Nor does one need to be some sort of China obsessive or worshipper to recognise reality. It's just how it is.

"Scared" is not the right word, certainly, which is why I used the imo more apt term cautious. There was no need for them to confront the US by taking Snowden in at the time, and no benefit from doing so, whereas Russia's relations with the US were very different.

China takes the long view: I understand Henry K. once asked Chou En Lai what he thought of the French revolution. Chou’s reply: Too soon to tell…

I like the premise of your article, but I don’t agree with your focus on the military. Economic progress does not automatically translate to a better, indigenously developed military, but it does lean that way over time.

What Beijing really lacks is any knowledge on how to project soft, cultural and diplomatic power in subtle, effective and modern ways. For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections. Not because there aren’t hackers in China, but because both China’s government and society lack the mindset, understanding, and experience to do something like that. If they tried, they would fail because it would be something extremely obvious and ham-fisted with no plausible deniability. Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media.

I often tell Chinese nationalists back home that China does not know how to play Great Game politics on the international stage, and they respond that a growing economy will fix everything. This isn’t so.

Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against a west that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes.

The old men in charge don’t seem to recognize this problem, let alone know what to do about it. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before China can be a true superpower.

China absolutely lacks soft power, and cultural pull to gain its socioeconomic status. It all roots back to mainland Chinese people. I came across many mainland Chinese. There's nothing to be awe-inspiring to hold your breath and be reckoned with their behavior.

If you're ethnically Chinese, and look like an American Born Chinese (ABC), mainland Chinese will instantly make a snide remark at you for not knowing their 2000 ass-long years old Chinese civilization.

The fact that they don't know a particular historical landmark is nothing to chide about. But it's the entire landscape of the people when you look at it, tells a lot more about the softpower. Professionalism is what Chinese need to learn. I have a close mainland Chinese friend, Ivy educated, got an interview from Amazon and Alibaba. What did he say? "Alibaba lacks professionalism". He's now at Amazon.

All western-educated Chinese don't like their homeland Chinese behavior. The only force that drives them to go back to China after education is "money". I remember reading somewhere they even got a huge clash for western educated Chinese professors, receiving millions while home-grown professors are getting paid less.

1. Mainland Chinese holding doors for you? Dream on.
2. "Excuse me" is out of their vocabularies while they squeeze through narrow lanes. A typical excuse is "We don't say in Chinese", I asked what does it mean "不好意思" then?

The constructive criticism is never heard of. The notion of 2000 years old civilization and culture is the major throwback punchline for all the criticism they receive.

I only hope this kind of lady attitude takes over the whole of China sooner. Until then, Ciao softpower !

...subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy,

And what exactly that alternative will look like?
Or, better, how would one describe and explain that alternative to, say, an average middle class person in the West?
In simple language....how the life of an average person would look like in that alternative?

[For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections.]

Nor did Russia, nor could anyone, that's fake news. Israel controls US politics by owning politicians, not by anything to do with elections.
Bad a press as China gets, it still gets a better press than Russia. Shouldn't one conclude that China's soft power is better than Russia's?

China is far more technically advanced than any other country I’m aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

A question unaddressed by rosy forecasts of US victory over China such as the recent RAND study.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

This dynamic isn’t particularly unique to China and is common not only developing countries (e.g. compare Goa to Bihar) but even the advanced countries. Massachusetts has more than twice the per capita income of Mississippi, and a number of American territories are considerably poorer than Mississippi.

China’s high level of sophistication relative to its income seems to be the result of its development strategy which prioritizes the acquisition and mastery of foreign technology. In this respect it is following in the footsteps of South Korea and Japan, and before them the United States and Germany to a lesser extent.

China is now moving past technology theft and into indigenous innovation. Its overseas investment is shifting from commodities into high technology, which the USA and the EU are trying to block.

Too late. The appropriate strategy would’ve been to apply COCOM controls against China in 1991 and high tariff barriers.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

It seems that this would depend primarily on Chinese willpower. There is no doubt that the USN could interdict most of China’s seaborne trade, and there is no way overland deliveries of raw materials (above all oil and coal) could substitute. However, given China’s own substantial domestic product and imports from Russia, the country could keep running under severe rationing.

I think we’re long past the time in which US air and seapower, even if reinforced by allied forces, can successfully do much damage to mainland China itself (other than, of course, atomic ballistic missiles).

But let’s say we defeat China in a limited war through blockade, financial warfare, and perhaps precision strikes on the mainland.

Then what?

China will recover rapidly and massively increase its armaments expenditures.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

I certainly agree that we have gone beyond the point at which a US victory can be forecast with sufficient confidence (and RAND be damned) for the likes of Bannon to be advising the US regime to go to war with China now because it's "now or never". If there was a now or never time, it was in the past.

That doesn't mean the US foreign policy elite isn't stupid enough to do it, of course. In fact recent history strongly suggests it is entirely foolish enough to do so, if it can find a President as gullible as Bush II to do it.

The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

Agreed. It would have the added advantage of making North Korea China's and South Korea's problem.

'It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.'

The Jps dont need uncle sham protection from China cuz...

China had no intention of invading the Diaoyu, never mind the Jp mainland.Jp has been the aggressor towards China since the Ming dynasty, period.

In the 70's China proposed to shelve the Diaoyu issue so that Sino/Jp could reconcile and move on. A kind of gentlemen agreement was reached and Beijing/Tokyo enjoyed a brief honeymoon period.At its high point, two plane loads of 600 Jp VIP of politicos, bussisness men, artists etc flew to Beijing to party with their Chinese couterparts.

Somebody in Washington were definitely not amused.A Beijing/Seoul./Tokyo axis would spell the end of murkkan hegemony in Asia, a scenario that surely made uncle sham sit up in the middle of the night in cold sweat.How's a man gonna make a living if Asians play nice to each other ?

Washington soon orchestrated a soft coup to depose the Beijing friendly Jp PM, Abe's ultra right party was restored to rule.From then on Tokyo executed a series of provocative moves to rekindle the Diaoyu conflict and Sino/Jp relation nose dive.

uncle sham was never in Asia to 'defend' JP or anybody else.The professional arsonist role in Asia and elsewhere has always been an agent provocateur.

Start a fire, sound the alarm and come back to the crime scene in firefighter's garb. Same M.O. in ECS, SCS, Korean Peninsula....and beyond.thats how uncle sham make a living.

p.s.1] Contrary to the Washington's fairy tale that oh so defenceless Jps are quaking in their boots , Jp is of course capable of defending themselves as pointed out but thats beside the point.

2] Diaoyu isnt their island,its claimed by China with good reason,concurred by several Jp historians.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China’s inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets–something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

This is a misconception

China could produce ball point pens and they could produce them 50 years ago, they just couldn't produce balls at the same quality and cost margin as Japan and Switzerland.

Hence for pen makers it was more economical to import a superior and cheaper component.

The US does not have the capability either to produce balls of the same quality

Interesting, that makes quite a bit more sense than the narrative I’ve been led to believe.

One Chinese company was able to produce pen balls shortly after the media made a fuss over this issue premier Li Keqiang brought up. The reason why premier Li raised the topic in the first place that China could not produce pen balls was mainly to urge state-owned enterprises to commit to industrial upgrading, as well as to set a good example for small private companies which mostly focused on quantity rather than quality at the time. Pen balls production is not that difficult but requires some research and investment which may not be worth it given how small the whole market of pen balls is. The chinese were practical in that they were happy to import pen balls from japan/EU so long as they could still make profits of making pens.

Actually, it makes sense for the west to not reconsile with a rising superpower like China.

In order to keep the west running, the west relies on dollar hedgemony. This means controlling the oil in the middle east and it also means neutering any alternative to the dollar which is why the west neutered Japan in the 80's.

Merely allowing China or Russia to exist as an equal would mean the west would collapse, as our entire economy is based on finance tricks.So it is not merely about allowing a peer to come up. If the Russia - China alliance is allowed it will mean the west will fall behind.

Two ridiculous memes in one post:

1. The West’s economic power is solely based on Dollar hegemony and “financial tricks”

2. The West neutered Japan

Dollar hegemony, for starters, only privileges the United States. The rest of the West deals with this “exorbitant privilege” just as non-Western countries do. In fact, Dollar hegemony arguably privileges China more than most Western countries as it can use its enormous Dollar reserves to purchase anything, anywhere.

And while Dollar hegemony affords the United States exorbitant privilege, the cost of this is a chronically overvalued currency leading a too small manufacturing sector and persistent current account deficits.

The economy of the West is most certainly not just financial tricks. The US economy for instance is the #2 industrial power, #2 manufacturing power, #1 service exporter (strangely foreigners seem to value banking services), #1 tech power, and its service sector is the world’s most productive.

Care to explain how exactly the West neutered Japan? Japan’s GDP per capita has continuously expanded in the past 30 years. Strange to allow a neutered country to purchase the Financial Times.

Lastly, the Russia-China alliance was effectively CREATED by the West owing to its entirely irrational hostility to Russia, which from 1992-2014 persistently sought integration and partnership with the West.

I didn't mean that financial trickery was America's sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America's elite made a deal with Japan's elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That's why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Russia - China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

All these caveats are legitimate, and the points made here are all credible and convincing (except the implication that it's even theoretically possible to "convert economic power into military power without any lag", but I suspect that's a mis-communication). The piece is a useful corrective to the usual Russia-haters and denigrators who understate Russia's importance in the US-Russian-Chinese balance. And in power projection and pure military capability and technology terms, Russia is still the leader as Martyanov suggests.

But nevertheless China is the senior partner in the relationship in two ways. First it has an awful lot more economic clout (it's not even close - China's gdp is 5-6 times the size of Russia's, and its population is nearly ten times Russia's), and so long as the guns stay silent that is what get things done. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, China is not involved in military action against the US's proxies, and so long as it can continue to avoid major conflict in the western Pacific and in Central Asia, or in Korea, that will likely remain the case. In this situation the impact of military power is still present but it is blunted. Russia's military power has allowed it to defend its allies and some of neighbours against US attempts to subvert and overthrow them, and to make some money through sales, but that's pretty much all.

Second, China's potential is generally rightly recognised as being far greater than Russia's, and barring major and presently unforeseeable events China's military power will ultimately eclipse Russia's over the next few decades. It's only a matter of time, unless something happens to change the present direction of events.

This is not surprising, and nor is it any criticism of Russia. China's present rise is the inevitable and much delayed return to something closer to world historical normal after its disastrous failure to keep up with the European advances after the industrial revolution. It has clearly achieved "take off" in this regard and has partially recovered, but the process still has a long way to go with only the coastal regions even approaching full development. And military power necessarily lags economic power, often by decades. It takes time to build institutions, gain experience, construct large military projects such as aircraft carriers and learn how to use them, and to catch up with cutting edge military technology, and there are often no real shortcuts.

In the long run, China is a potential peer superpower competitor with the US, whereas Russia simply is not, though Russia for certain can stand up for itself. But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US's fading global dominance until the threat has passed (it may already have passed, but it would be premature and dangerous to assume so).

A very thoughtful comment. 3 points in response:
1. China’s recent rise. Contextually, I think you mischaracterized. Check out Gunter Frank’s ReOrient, 5,000 years of history.’ Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750.
2. I think it a mistake to think mainly/only in terms of ‘Russia’ and ‘China’. What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence ‘Eurasia’ or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

They have used our financial system for a while but once they can kick out our BIS-based banks our hold on them will be greatly diminished. Once they both have strong defense, our nuclear threat capacity will also be diminished. Once their new quantum-based internet system goes online, any time now, which is unhackable with any current techniques, our ability to mess with them will be further diminished. Once all the pipelines are in place, our ability to divide and conquer in the Middle East will be diminished. Once the train routes are in place and working well, later on with high speeds between Beijing, Moscow, Berlin and Lisbon etc., the reality of a Eurasian civilisation will be obvious to all. This is the biggest thing that has happened geopolitically since ……. I don’t know, but perhaps since the last Ice Age which wiped out ancient civilisations which we know only by ruins which tell us little.

3. Mandarin system. In terms of China’s strength, I have been most impressed by their political system’s clear stability. I don’t understand what they believe in and so forth, nor how fair/unfair/inefficient/efficient they are, but they seem to have presided over the biggest economic and infrastructural transformation boom in world history the past few decades and done so with extraordinary political stability. I am not aware of any equivalent to this in western history in the past millenia. For us a few decades of relative stability is exceptional. I am not sure if America has ever had more than a few years at a time – which means no true stability – though perhaps you could argue we have been relatively stable since after all those assassinations in the 60′s and the Deep State Plutocracy has run the regime pretty much without resistance since then, so about 45 years. Perhaps stable, then, but also involving peak and decline with no true revival in sight.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can’t get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analysed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilisation right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn’t about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the ‘Anglo-Zionists’ spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence ‘Eurasia’ or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

3. Mandarin system.

The future of humanity will likely turn on whether you are correct to put faith in the Chinese system. Certainly Chinese predominance will change the world profoundly (not necessarily for the worse, though it means a shift in power away from our own elites).

Personally I don't like long range prediction (too many uncertainties and unknowable unknowns in the future), but yours is probably as good as any of the possibilities.

Andrei,
Why aren't you publishing more articles here? A lot of us like your presentions. Please don't put off more writing because of a few comments that are highly disagreeable, all good writers get that. Please consider what I've said.

Joe, by no means this is dictated by my avoidance of disagreeable comments–far from it, often I enjoy them. But I also post in my blog, I also post in US Naval Institute Blog, I am also working on another article for USNI Proceedings, plus I am literally busting my butt on the outline of the book–it is long pass any reasonable delays for me and I finally found resolve and focus. But I will continue to post on Unz Review, which I consider one of the most important English language alt-right resource. But thank you for your high praise of my work.

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times being utterly defeated by foes with tiny fraction of population and economic wealth . This basically constitutes the world longest track record of great nation chocking and failing. China has been in tech and weapons game long enough and the gap seems to persist despite mentioned by you tons of Soviet tech taken by China in 90's. Someone has it and someone just does not and it is always potential. Every great power also had to sleep own dragon to become truly great. I respect Chinese culture and civilizational achievement but I just do not see China as the One knowing their history

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times

Except that simply isn’t true. China has repeatedly been the “number one” globally, it just hasn’t had that status since the technological advances stemming from Europe’s innovations a few hundred years ago made actual global empires possible. And that’s solely because, for various reasons, it has never caught up with those innovations and their ramifications – until now.

As I noted above, the likely rise of China to global number one is not something new, it’s in one sense just a return to what was often the normal condition in the world, prior to the C18th or so.

There’s no reason to be upset at facing that self-evident reality. It doesn’t disrespect the real achievements of nations like Russia and Britain. Nor does one need to be some sort of China obsessive or worshipper to recognise reality. It’s just how it is.

China was as you say number one globally by default when the West went through Dark Ages and early early Medieval period. Otherwise we mean different things by One. I mean many things China is going to replace USA as the world most influential in all aspects power and I just do not see it.
Chinese history as I stated full of examples when China rose for brief periods and then crashed or was crashed. Momentum never was sustained and China always is far more concerned about internal stability over external influence. Basically, I believe that as Andrei posted regarding what constitutes state power China lacks in few departments not only technological ones but in national character department and cultural department which I think is pretty crucial. It is all in history books.

A very thoughtful comment. 3 points in response:1. China's recent rise. Contextually, I think you mischaracterized. Check out Gunter Frank's ReOrient, 5,000 years of history.' Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750. 2. I think it a mistake to think mainly/only in terms of 'Russia' and 'China'. What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence 'Eurasia' or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

They have used our financial system for a while but once they can kick out our BIS-based banks our hold on them will be greatly diminished. Once they both have strong defense, our nuclear threat capacity will also be diminished. Once their new quantum-based internet system goes online, any time now, which is unhackable with any current techniques, our ability to mess with them will be further diminished. Once all the pipelines are in place, our ability to divide and conquer in the Middle East will be diminished. Once the train routes are in place and working well, later on with high speeds between Beijing, Moscow, Berlin and Lisbon etc., the reality of a Eurasian civilisation will be obvious to all. This is the biggest thing that has happened geopolitically since ....... I don't know, but perhaps since the last Ice Age which wiped out ancient civilisations which we know only by ruins which tell us little.

3. Mandarin system. In terms of China's strength, I have been most impressed by their political system's clear stability. I don't understand what they believe in and so forth, nor how fair/unfair/inefficient/efficient they are, but they seem to have presided over the biggest economic and infrastructural transformation boom in world history the past few decades and done so with extraordinary political stability. I am not aware of any equivalent to this in western history in the past millenia. For us a few decades of relative stability is exceptional. I am not sure if America has ever had more than a few years at a time - which means no true stability - though perhaps you could argue we have been relatively stable since after all those assassinations in the 60's and the Deep State Plutocracy has run the regime pretty much without resistance since then, so about 45 years. Perhaps stable, then, but also involving peak and decline with no true revival in sight.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can't get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analysed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilisation right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn't about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the 'Anglo-Zionists' spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence ‘Eurasia’ or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

3. Mandarin system.

The future of humanity will likely turn on whether you are correct to put faith in the Chinese system. Certainly Chinese predominance will change the world profoundly (not necessarily for the worse, though it means a shift in power away from our own elites).

Personally I don’t like long range prediction (too many uncertainties and unknowable unknowns in the future), but yours is probably as good as any of the possibilities.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

Yes, and that was your point earlier. My reply is more of an adjunct or footnote than argument, however interesting. To add a little: the main thrust of the conquest of the Americas was by Spain and what transpired was the mass mining and export of gold and silver (at horrific cost to the gunless natives both in illness and being systematically worked to death). This gold and silver was not simply to fill up Spanish coffers. No, it was to be able to open up trade routes with the Chinese Empire and diaspora, the Big Dog in the known world. Early mariners arriving in Indian ports - and later Indonesian and later Chinese - described ports larger than any in Europe, indeed large ports like Mumbai were described as containing more ships than all the ships in Europe. Mindblowing. But Europe had no goods to offer in trade given that Asian crafts, spices, workmanship was many generations ahead of our own. We had no silks, no food, no other textiles. Portuguese and Dutch used gold and silver to buy spices, silks and furniture from the Chinese to take back to Europe in trade. Probably some Spanish did too (don't recall those details), but for sure once they found silver and gold in the Americas, that's what it was used for by the Spanish: trade with China.

Then what happened? The gold and silver ran out, some time in the early 1700's (I think). So now this is where it gets interesting. Some time in the mid 1700's, an Englishman commissioned an engineer to design and make a special machine (Spinning Jenny) which could make cloth faster and cheaper than by human labour. Why? So that his ships (many of which built in India because they made better ships back then) could undercut Indian cotton manufacturers (mainly housewives) and thus he would have something to trade in Asia given there was no more gold and silver to be had by plundering Spanish ships returning from the Americas. So he would sell the cotton to the Indians - which were a densely populated, sophisticated and rich multi-national continent - in exchange for gold or silver, the main currency of the Chinese-based Empire, and then continue on through Asia buying spices and so forth with that earned currency. That is what the Spinning Jenny was made for: to raise funds with which to buy Chinese product lines.

And THAT was a major catalyst for the industrial revolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

I suspect you are correct. However, although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology which is more than symbiosis, it means that each side has elements vital to the survival of the other and they have deliberately set it up this way because for both of them a strong real Eurasia is ultimately the best thing and also it makes it impossible for them to go to war with each other. Something like that. So even if Putin did want to join Europe finally after the botched-up 20th century Anglo-Zionist or 'Maritime Powers' excesses, when the pivot happened it turned into a truly historic event, something for sure he can't do with the West given our political system features mainly unelected self-serving elites operating shadow governments whose policies mainly involve war-mongering, murder, destabilization and generally sowing panic and chaos.

As to the Mandarin system and your remarks, I certainly wouldn't predict that sort of thing, but was merely remarking that given how stable their system is even whilst managing much larger populations than any other (except India) and whilst undergoing such epochal change, that maybe we have something to learn from them. Although I didn't say it, have felt for years and feel more strongly now that the best thing to do would be to get rid of these ridiculous two-or-more political party elections. So easy to corrupt. So much tomfoolery. No way to run countries.

Another point about the 1750 recession. Again, I can't recall details - read about all this about 15 years ago - but I believe the Chinese recession which unfolded was not caused by anything coming out of Europe. It was their time to implode and implode they did. They had to go through various humiliations along the way, including machine-gun-toting British Empire types with pith helmets and bushy sideburns force-feeding their people opium and suchlike (the Emperor's letter to Queen Victoria about this is a world historical gem), and finally the collapse of the Emperor and then the Communist business (AngloZionist mischief no doubt : how else could Chinese speaking Mandarin possibly get the notion that Marx was just the ticket for how to run the largest population in the world?!). So their trajectory was in descent just at the time ours was in the ascendant. And indeed, I suspect that it was BECAUSE of their collapse that the British Empire was able to step up. Partly because for several decades they had an accidental but nevertheless very real technological advantage - first the rifle, then the machine gun as the Zulus warrior nations learned the hard way - and then because they developed trade routes backed with military / naval protection in the absence of any strong resistance - because of the Chinese collapse.

Eurasia is coming back, though. It's a funny thing: if America First polity actually developed, it would allow Eurasia to develop peacefully and in so doing dismantle all its foreign bases, let banking system hegemony go and so on. If the lefties have their way with the Paris deals, UN government, IMF and so forth, the nasty empire continues and literally billions of human beings' lives will be far worse. All those indulging in vitriolic hatred and undignified scorn of the current US President, even if they are well intentioned (which I doubt - not the leaders anyway) don't stand for much except feel-good memes.

These are interesting times. But China-Russia is solid. It is YUGE! And it would be better for everyone in the world if we all got on board with it!

1. The West's economic power is solely based on Dollar hegemony and "financial tricks"

2. The West neutered Japan

Dollar hegemony, for starters, only privileges the United States. The rest of the West deals with this "exorbitant privilege" just as non-Western countries do. In fact, Dollar hegemony arguably privileges China more than most Western countries as it can use its enormous Dollar reserves to purchase anything, anywhere.

And while Dollar hegemony affords the United States exorbitant privilege, the cost of this is a chronically overvalued currency leading a too small manufacturing sector and persistent current account deficits.

The economy of the West is most certainly not just financial tricks. The US economy for instance is the #2 industrial power, #2 manufacturing power, #1 service exporter (strangely foreigners seem to value banking services), #1 tech power, and its service sector is the world's most productive.

Care to explain how exactly the West neutered Japan? Japan's GDP per capita has continuously expanded in the past 30 years. Strange to allow a neutered country to purchase the Financial Times.

Lastly, the Russia-China alliance was effectively CREATED by the West owing to its entirely irrational hostility to Russia, which from 1992-2014 persistently sought integration and partnership with the West.

I didn’t mean that financial trickery was America’s sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America’s elite made a deal with Japan’s elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That’s why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Russia – China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

I didn’t mean that financial trickery was America’s sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

America as we know it adjust (crashing down is too dramatic), but...

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

This is simply wrong.

The military abroad is paid in Dollars, and they are supplied largely by American produced goods.

Social welfare costs within the United States are likewise entirely denominated in Dollars.

What would in fact happen is that the value of the Dollar would decline substantially (not unprecedented--this was even deliberately undertaken by the Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan Administrations at various times). Imports would decline (resulting in a real loss of living standards ofc), and American export goods would be cheaper.

The idea that America would fall behind Russia and China in per capita terms because of this is absurd. US per capita GDP measured by purchasing power parity is nearly $60,000. While a sudden devaluation would no doubt cause many economic problems (inflation being #1), it would not collapse the economy since the USA does not have foreign debts denominated in foreign currencies. Even countries that do have such arrangements survive sharp devaluations just fine--witness the adjustment of the Russian economy to the sudden collapse of the Ruble in 2014.

You're more on the mark when you mention the USA would lose a powerful lever to bully other countries. This, however, would ultimately be to the gain of American people and producers.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America’s elite made a deal with Japan’s elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That’s why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Japanese government has always sought to suppress the value of the Yen in order to boost exports...and also to increase Yen revenues of Japanese exporters in order to benefit Japanese capital.

In "neutering" the value of its own currency, Japan aids the competitiveness of its manufacturers.

And in fact, an exact opposite deal took place: the 1986 Plaza Accord, in which the G7 finance ministers agreed to allow the Dollar to DEPRECIATE in value. The Yen continued to soar against the dollar until the 1996 "Reverse Plaza Accord", by which time Japan's "sick man of Asia" propaganda caused Washington to feel sorry for Japan.

The Russia – China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

We certainly can't know whether or not an alternate Western policy would've stopped the formation of the current Russia-China alliance, but it is a fact that the USSR and China had hostile relations from 1960-1989. Prior to the Second World War relations could hardly be called friendly either. The USSR intervened in China multiple times in the 20s and 30s, and the Russian Far East was annexed from the Qing Empire in Tsarist times.

I do know that there are a number of Eurasianists in Russia, and for that matter of a number of American strategists subscribe to Mackinder's views of geopolitics (the late Zbig comes to mind). I don't know to what degree geopolitics is appreciated in China.

That said, given the persistent Western orientation of Russia in the 20 years following the collapse of communism it seems real partnership with Russia was possible. Putin even made an offer to join NATO, and he was the first world leader to telephone George W. Bush after 9-11--and immediately offered Russian assistance. This coming only two years after NATO's assault on Serbia.

Russia, while a mighty nation, is vulnerable in that it is positioned between two colossi. Seems reasonable to me that the party (West or China) offering Russia the best deal stood to win something. 25 years of disastrous American foreign policy ensured that China not only offered the best deal, but was the only game in town for Russia.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

This dynamic isn't particularly unique to China and is common not only developing countries (e.g. compare Goa to Bihar) but even the advanced countries. Massachusetts has more than twice the per capita income of Mississippi, and a number of American territories are considerably poorer than Mississippi.

China's high level of sophistication relative to its income seems to be the result of its development strategy which prioritizes the acquisition and mastery of foreign technology. In this respect it is following in the footsteps of South Korea and Japan, and before them the United States and Germany to a lesser extent.

China is now moving past technology theft and into indigenous innovation. Its overseas investment is shifting from commodities into high technology, which the USA and the EU are trying to block.

Too late. The appropriate strategy would've been to apply COCOM controls against China in 1991 and high tariff barriers.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

It seems that this would depend primarily on Chinese willpower. There is no doubt that the USN could interdict most of China's seaborne trade, and there is no way overland deliveries of raw materials (above all oil and coal) could substitute. However, given China's own substantial domestic product and imports from Russia, the country could keep running under severe rationing.

I think we're long past the time in which US air and seapower, even if reinforced by allied forces, can successfully do much damage to mainland China itself (other than, of course, atomic ballistic missiles).

But let's say we defeat China in a limited war through blockade, financial warfare, and perhaps precision strikes on the mainland.

Then what?

China will recover rapidly and massively increase its armaments expenditures.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

I certainly agree that we have gone beyond the point at which a US victory can be forecast with sufficient confidence (and RAND be damned) for the likes of Bannon to be advising the US regime to go to war with China now because it’s “now or never”. If there was a now or never time, it was in the past.

That doesn’t mean the US foreign policy elite isn’t stupid enough to do it, of course. In fact recent history strongly suggests it is entirely foolish enough to do so, if it can find a President as gullible as Bush II to do it.

The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

Agreed. It would have the added advantage of making North Korea China’s and South Korea’s problem.

China is also rapidly catching up in physics, where the U.S. has long dominated

I can tell you more: about 80% of US Ph.Ds in physics are people with Chinese names. I, in fact, know two of them.

ASW Missiles,

Wrong. In fact, overall Chinese ASW capability is not that great precisely because of the lag in a number of crucial technologies, from acoustic (sonar) to non-acoustic technologies.

Hypersonic Space Weapons

Again, US-made false (incompetent) meme.

1. All space weapons are hyper-sonic by definition. Here, China is one of many (and by far not the leading one) nations who have this type of program. In fact, it is Russia which leads this field since launched many times and successfully its maneuverable vehicles.

2. China's actual hyper-sonic missile capabilities are not even in the same universe with Russia's (no, I merely narrate facts and not having seizures from uber-Russian "patriotism"). China has nothing comparable in quality and capability to P-800 Onyx, 3M54 or 3M14, let alone 3M22 Zircon. In the latter case, one has to have materials and fuels which are currently beyond Chinese capabilities. In general, most Chinese missile technology is a knock-off of Russian older programs (such as DF-21). As per Chinese intercontinental ballistic capability--it made a "strange" leap in early to mid-1990s which accidentally coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Chinese taking literally plane load of technical documentation from Yuzhmash in Ukraine and from Russia.

This just a brief review.

Thanks for those corrections. Can you provide the links?

I was referring to China’s DF-ZF prompt global strike weapon which, from memory, was tested seven times and was successful six times (the second test failed). It was (again, from memory) this string of successes that stimulated both Russia and the USA to recommence their PGS programs after a string of failures. Does this timeline match your recollection?

Russian "Izdelie 4202" flies since mid-2000s--way before China really got to real testing of similar technology. Judging by recent bragging by Rogozin about new hyper-sonic glider becoming an actual weapon very soon--I would assume that the whole program was very successful. Evidently the carrier (one of, possibly) for those will be, as expected, brand-new ICBM RS-28 Sarmat.

Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence ‘Eurasia’ or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

3. Mandarin system.

The future of humanity will likely turn on whether you are correct to put faith in the Chinese system. Certainly Chinese predominance will change the world profoundly (not necessarily for the worse, though it means a shift in power away from our own elites).

Personally I don't like long range prediction (too many uncertainties and unknowable unknowns in the future), but yours is probably as good as any of the possibilities.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

Yes, and that was your point earlier. My reply is more of an adjunct or footnote than argument, however interesting. To add a little: the main thrust of the conquest of the Americas was by Spain and what transpired was the mass mining and export of gold and silver (at horrific cost to the gunless natives both in illness and being systematically worked to death). This gold and silver was not simply to fill up Spanish coffers. No, it was to be able to open up trade routes with the Chinese Empire and diaspora, the Big Dog in the known world. Early mariners arriving in Indian ports – and later Indonesian and later Chinese – described ports larger than any in Europe, indeed large ports like Mumbai were described as containing more ships than all the ships in Europe. Mindblowing. But Europe had no goods to offer in trade given that Asian crafts, spices, workmanship was many generations ahead of our own. We had no silks, no food, no other textiles. Portuguese and Dutch used gold and silver to buy spices, silks and furniture from the Chinese to take back to Europe in trade. Probably some Spanish did too (don’t recall those details), but for sure once they found silver and gold in the Americas, that’s what it was used for by the Spanish: trade with China.

Then what happened? The gold and silver ran out, some time in the early 1700′s (I think). So now this is where it gets interesting. Some time in the mid 1700′s, an Englishman commissioned an engineer to design and make a special machine (Spinning Jenny) which could make cloth faster and cheaper than by human labour. Why? So that his ships (many of which built in India because they made better ships back then) could undercut Indian cotton manufacturers (mainly housewives) and thus he would have something to trade in Asia given there was no more gold and silver to be had by plundering Spanish ships returning from the Americas. So he would sell the cotton to the Indians – which were a densely populated, sophisticated and rich multi-national continent – in exchange for gold or silver, the main currency of the Chinese-based Empire, and then continue on through Asia buying spices and so forth with that earned currency. That is what the Spinning Jenny was made for: to raise funds with which to buy Chinese product lines.

And THAT was a major catalyst for the industrial revolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

I suspect you are correct. However, although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology which is more than symbiosis, it means that each side has elements vital to the survival of the other and they have deliberately set it up this way because for both of them a strong real Eurasia is ultimately the best thing and also it makes it impossible for them to go to war with each other. Something like that. So even if Putin did want to join Europe finally after the botched-up 20th century Anglo-Zionist or ‘Maritime Powers’ excesses, when the pivot happened it turned into a truly historic event, something for sure he can’t do with the West given our political system features mainly unelected self-serving elites operating shadow governments whose policies mainly involve war-mongering, murder, destabilization and generally sowing panic and chaos.

As to the Mandarin system and your remarks, I certainly wouldn’t predict that sort of thing, but was merely remarking that given how stable their system is even whilst managing much larger populations than any other (except India) and whilst undergoing such epochal change, that maybe we have something to learn from them. Although I didn’t say it, have felt for years and feel more strongly now that the best thing to do would be to get rid of these ridiculous two-or-more political party elections. So easy to corrupt. So much tomfoolery. No way to run countries.

... although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology ...

Was it this one?
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/fpid1fhd6nv59/China_Russia_Double_Helix

Aeroflot: from world's deadliest airline to one of the safest in the sky
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Aeroflot-from-worlds-deadliest-airline-to-one-of-the-safest-in-the-sky/

A: Out of 199 passenger aircraft only 30 are Russian made (SSJ-100).

The SSJ-100 carriers 12 passengers in business class and 75 in economy class. With a range of 4000KM, it can cover a fair distance but the Russians are pragmatic—they understand that people do not like flying “Russian” planes and so keep this model off most European routes.

Russian aviation authorities have grounded the country’s fleet of its newest model of civilian airliner, the Sukhoi Superjet 100. Metal fatigue, a problem usually associated with older airplanes, was discovered in the tail section of a new Sukhoi plane, the Russian regulator Rosaviatsia said Friday.

Safety concerns with the Superjet, Russia’s first post-Soviet passenger plane, emerged soon after its introduction in 2008. Dozens of employees at the Siberia plant were found to have faked their university engineering diplomas.

https://airwaysmag.com/safety-industry/russia-grounds-superjet/

The SSJ was the first Russian airplane in a couple of generations to gain genuine acceptance from a major airline outside of a Communist nation. Given that status any sort of safety issue, real or perceived, harms the public perception of Russian airliners (already relatively poor in the eyes of Westerners). At the same time, the pre-emptive nature of this AD and grounding is actually a signal of the rising professionalism of Russian aviation regulators, who have historically not had the best reputation for safety. Despite the headlines, this AD could actually be a positive for the reputation of newer Russian jets within the industry.

Are saying “only the West can invent and only the West can succeed?” So nobody should do anything to make themselves self-reliant? The Western colonial imperialists have been saying the same thing since they can sail out of the Mediterranean Sea, they also bad mouthing others to justify the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes they committed as humanitarian intervention too.

How about those toxic secularized sub-prime mortgages and their backed bundled loan portfolios, derivatives and credit default swaps provided by the Wall St. And London financial crocodiles that caused the 2008 global financial meltdown? Shall we stop using Wall St. and London financial facilities? The Americans are so deep in the ideology that they even don’t know they have one.

Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence ‘Eurasia’ or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

3. Mandarin system.

The future of humanity will likely turn on whether you are correct to put faith in the Chinese system. Certainly Chinese predominance will change the world profoundly (not necessarily for the worse, though it means a shift in power away from our own elites).

Personally I don't like long range prediction (too many uncertainties and unknowable unknowns in the future), but yours is probably as good as any of the possibilities.

Another point about the 1750 recession. Again, I can’t recall details – read about all this about 15 years ago – but I believe the Chinese recession which unfolded was not caused by anything coming out of Europe. It was their time to implode and implode they did. They had to go through various humiliations along the way, including machine-gun-toting British Empire types with pith helmets and bushy sideburns force-feeding their people opium and suchlike (the Emperor’s letter to Queen Victoria about this is a world historical gem), and finally the collapse of the Emperor and then the Communist business (AngloZionist mischief no doubt : how else could Chinese speaking Mandarin possibly get the notion that Marx was just the ticket for how to run the largest population in the world?!). So their trajectory was in descent just at the time ours was in the ascendant. And indeed, I suspect that it was BECAUSE of their collapse that the British Empire was able to step up. Partly because for several decades they had an accidental but nevertheless very real technological advantage – first the rifle, then the machine gun as the Zulus warrior nations learned the hard way – and then because they developed trade routes backed with military / naval protection in the absence of any strong resistance – because of the Chinese collapse.

Eurasia is coming back, though. It’s a funny thing: if America First polity actually developed, it would allow Eurasia to develop peacefully and in so doing dismantle all its foreign bases, let banking system hegemony go and so on. If the lefties have their way with the Paris deals, UN government, IMF and so forth, the nasty empire continues and literally billions of human beings’ lives will be far worse. All those indulging in vitriolic hatred and undignified scorn of the current US President, even if they are well intentioned (which I doubt – not the leaders anyway) don’t stand for much except feel-good memes.

These are interesting times. But China-Russia is solid. It is YUGE! And it would be better for everyone in the world if we all got on board with it!

You also should investigate further a few things about this "cycle" phenomena. You will then have a more complete picture.

Pacifism brought about by certain dictums in the art of war book because of Confucianism/Rujia philosophy.

Hubris leading to disdain for anything outside of China and corruption as seen in footbinding of women.

The role of the "king makers", certain Daoist circles that remain largely hidden to this day. A remark attributed to the founder of the Quanzhen school of Daoism which regards to the inanity of the Song Emperors, "a solution has been been decided, it's name is Genghis Khan".

If you go back and see the borders achieved with the Han Chinese dynasties like the Tang, there was progress to achieve lebensraum but it took the Mongols to establish the present size of what China is today, and the Ming after the Yuan failed to restore it.

So the Manchurians were "brought in" and they as the Qing dynasty succeeded in restoring the borders of the Yuan where the Ming failed but succumb themselves to the accumulated crap of China's long history as they assimilated themselves into Chinese culture.

Chinese hubris and corruption was burned away with another solution that had the name of the British East India Company. The CCP "dynasty" is the current "capstone" of that much needed reset.

Just contrast the other oldie that never really got reset, India, with China...

Another thing to look into... The Hakka Chinese who as a rule never adopted footbinding and they figured very prominently in politics nowadays...

China is far more technically advanced than any other country I’m aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

A question unaddressed by rosy forecasts of US victory over China such as the recent RAND study.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

A hugely interesting question to ponder, isn’t it? judging by the speed with which China buys Russian technology–they do consider such a contingency, but also–this shopping spree answers a very serious question: China knows about deficiencies of her high end weapon systems. She desperately needs (and it is being delivered as I type this) pretty much everything across the whole defensive spectrum–from SU-35s, all types of Anti-Shipping Cruise Missiles to S-400 AD complexes and all sensors and combat management systems which come with it. It is a huge Red Flag.

This is, btw, huge and it tells us that Russia understands that all of those sold weapon systems will be, of course, copied. Chinese copies, of course, will not be on par, as usual, with originals but even those copies’ capabilities will be enough for deterrence. This is a very ally-wise approach and, hopefully, Chinese understand that. In the same time Russia already is readying new generation systems (from T-50 5th Generation fighter to S-500 and others) to go IOC. The news about S-500, however, are stunning.

As per possible naval clash–if PLAN ventures beyond First Island Chain–it will be sunk and not by US Navy’s carrier aviation. US Navy’s as well as Japanese submarine forces are among top 3 best in the world. They are world-class and better than Chinese counterparts in most important respects. That is a reality.

That's hopefully as USSR/ Russia has long history of providing and giving with later experience of having to write off lots of debt and having China previously bite USSR back after USSR basically helped to build Chinese industrial base foundation, providing military assistance and the very base for Mao to take over the rest of China in Manchuria.
I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what's being done.

I like the premise of your article, but I don't agree with your focus on the military. Economic progress does not automatically translate to a better, indigenously developed military, but it does lean that way over time.

What Beijing really lacks is any knowledge on how to project soft, cultural and diplomatic power in subtle, effective and modern ways. For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections. Not because there aren't hackers in China, but because both China's government and society lack the mindset, understanding, and experience to do something like that. If they tried, they would fail because it would be something extremely obvious and ham-fisted with no plausible deniability. Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media.

I often tell Chinese nationalists back home that China does not know how to play Great Game politics on the international stage, and they respond that a growing economy will fix everything. This isn't so.

Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against a west that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes.

The old men in charge don't seem to recognize this problem, let alone know what to do about it. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before China can be a true superpower.

I think I agreed with your sentiment.

China absolutely lacks soft power, and cultural pull to gain its socioeconomic status. It all roots back to mainland Chinese people. I came across many mainland Chinese. There’s nothing to be awe-inspiring to hold your breath and be reckoned with their behavior.

If you’re ethnically Chinese, and look like an American Born Chinese (ABC), mainland Chinese will instantly make a snide remark at you for not knowing their 2000 ass-long years old Chinese civilization.

The fact that they don’t know a particular historical landmark is nothing to chide about. But it’s the entire landscape of the people when you look at it, tells a lot more about the softpower. Professionalism is what Chinese need to learn. I have a close mainland Chinese friend, Ivy educated, got an interview from Amazon and Alibaba. What did he say? “Alibaba lacks professionalism”. He’s now at Amazon.

All western-educated Chinese don’t like their homeland Chinese behavior. The only force that drives them to go back to China after education is “money”. I remember reading somewhere they even got a huge clash for western educated Chinese professors, receiving millions while home-grown professors are getting paid less.

1. Mainland Chinese holding doors for you? Dream on.
2. “Excuse me” is out of their vocabularies while they squeeze through narrow lanes. A typical excuse is “We don’t say in Chinese”, I asked what does it mean “不好意思” then?

The constructive criticism is never heard of. The notion of 2000 years old civilization and culture is the major throwback punchline for all the criticism they receive.

I only hope this kind of lady attitude takes over the whole of China sooner. Until then, Ciao softpower !

Have ever come across your mind that you are in the bad company? You should know there are 1.4 billion Chinese there are bound to be some bad apples. If I take your approach I can tell you that the American if is not worse definitely they are undesirable. Let's take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won't harm you.

I was referring to China's DF-ZF prompt global strike weapon which, from memory, was tested seven times and was successful six times (the second test failed). It was (again, from memory) this string of successes that stimulated both Russia and the USA to recommence their PGS programs after a string of failures. Does this timeline match your recollection?

Russian “Izdelie 4202″ flies since mid-2000s–way before China really got to real testing of similar technology. Judging by recent bragging by Rogozin about new hyper-sonic glider becoming an actual weapon very soon–I would assume that the whole program was very successful. Evidently the carrier (one of, possibly) for those will be, as expected, brand-new ICBM RS-28 Sarmat.

I didn't mean that financial trickery was America's sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America's elite made a deal with Japan's elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That's why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Russia - China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

I didn’t mean that financial trickery was America’s sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

America as we know it adjust (crashing down is too dramatic), but…

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

This is simply wrong.

The military abroad is paid in Dollars, and they are supplied largely by American produced goods.

Social welfare costs within the United States are likewise entirely denominated in Dollars.

What would in fact happen is that the value of the Dollar would decline substantially (not unprecedented–this was even deliberately undertaken by the Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan Administrations at various times). Imports would decline (resulting in a real loss of living standards ofc), and American export goods would be cheaper.

The idea that America would fall behind Russia and China in per capita terms because of this is absurd. US per capita GDP measured by purchasing power parity is nearly $60,000. While a sudden devaluation would no doubt cause many economic problems (inflation being #1), it would not collapse the economy since the USA does not have foreign debts denominated in foreign currencies. Even countries that do have such arrangements survive sharp devaluations just fine–witness the adjustment of the Russian economy to the sudden collapse of the Ruble in 2014.

You’re more on the mark when you mention the USA would lose a powerful lever to bully other countries. This, however, would ultimately be to the gain of American people and producers.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America’s elite made a deal with Japan’s elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That’s why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Japanese government has always sought to suppress the value of the Yen in order to boost exports…and also to increase Yen revenues of Japanese exporters in order to benefit Japanese capital.

In “neutering” the value of its own currency, Japan aids the competitiveness of its manufacturers.

And in fact, an exact opposite deal took place: the 1986 Plaza Accord, in which the G7 finance ministers agreed to allow the Dollar to DEPRECIATE in value. The Yen continued to soar against the dollar until the 1996 “Reverse Plaza Accord”, by which time Japan’s “sick man of Asia” propaganda caused Washington to feel sorry for Japan.

The Russia – China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

We certainly can’t know whether or not an alternate Western policy would’ve stopped the formation of the current Russia-China alliance, but it is a fact that the USSR and China had hostile relations from 1960-1989. Prior to the Second World War relations could hardly be called friendly either. The USSR intervened in China multiple times in the 20s and 30s, and the Russian Far East was annexed from the Qing Empire in Tsarist times.

I do know that there are a number of Eurasianists in Russia, and for that matter of a number of American strategists subscribe to Mackinder’s views of geopolitics (the late Zbig comes to mind). I don’t know to what degree geopolitics is appreciated in China.

That said, given the persistent Western orientation of Russia in the 20 years following the collapse of communism it seems real partnership with Russia was possible. Putin even made an offer to join NATO, and he was the first world leader to telephone George W. Bush after 9-11–and immediately offered Russian assistance. This coming only two years after NATO’s assault on Serbia.

Russia, while a mighty nation, is vulnerable in that it is positioned between two colossi. Seems reasonable to me that the party (West or China) offering Russia the best deal stood to win something. 25 years of disastrous American foreign policy ensured that China not only offered the best deal, but was the only game in town for Russia.

Ok. I admit I was lazy in writing the post as I am on my phone. But what I am trying to say with America falling behind is not on a per capita basis, but that America will have to take a step back and retreat from the world stage while China and Russia would not.

You underestimate the effects of the petrodollar going away. Yes, imports would be more expensive. But also assets in America would crash which would include real estate and stocks. Pensions and social security would be scratched.

I think such a crash could come with a trade war with China, so domestics costs would also rise even more than just inflation.

After years of making itself a service based economy, America simply does not have the savings to retool it's economy into something relevant in today's day and age. Nor does it have the social cohesion to survive a big crash without tearing itself apart.

Over time America would recover, but keep in mind that America has not faced a real recession in forever. Every other time in the past, the fed has spared the economy from real pain.

Interesting video, but as usual the focus is on individual profitability - Google is presented a much superior to the airline industry. Why? Because Thiel shows that although the total sales of Google are considerably lower than the airline industry, it has a more or less monopoly in Search and can capture much higher profits. It's profits aren't being competed away.

What he doesn't say, is that the total sales of the airline industry are spread over many US workers (manufacturing, maintenance, sales, administration, airports etc) providing plenty of family livelihoods apart from the advantages of low cost transport across the continent.

In contrast Google provides little employment with quite a high proportion of its employees being non-US nationals, and it amasses cash reserves that as he says, it "hardly knows what to do with".

Thiel as always assesses industry in terms of profitability. The airline industry is not going to go away and it's probably never going to be more than marginally profitable, but at the national level (remember that concept) it is one of the leaders in generating employment at all skill levels throughout the US. Same with the 19th Century US railroad industry that he dismisses.

There remains a large gap in aerospace – China’s continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre

It is more than that. There are huge issues with design of air frames--they simply, for some reason, lack this ability. Nothing indigenous of any decent, forget good, quality. And speaking of quality--this is the issue across the whole spectrum of Chinese-produced technology.

Andrei Martyanov, it is not easy to build an alliance between Russia and China, I am not about falling into the Anglo’s divide-and-conquer trap/trick to ruin that precious alliance, nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

Xi delivered a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations as following.”We are now living in a rapidly changing world…Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.” Chinese do not believe superiority, we believe win-win five principle of peace coexistence.

nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

What pride? Does me stating that American-made cars are better than Russian ones tell about my...American pride? Is pointing out the fact that Siemens MRI machines are still better than Russian-made ones makes my pride German? I work with cold hard facts and call them as I see them. Least of all I do this for anybody's benefit--Anglo or anybody's else--least of all unwittingly. My task is to be as close to the actual truth as possible. People will decide if I succeeded or failed. I am keenly aware in whose sails the winds of history are blowing.

Russian "Izdelie 4202" flies since mid-2000s--way before China really got to real testing of similar technology. Judging by recent bragging by Rogozin about new hyper-sonic glider becoming an actual weapon very soon--I would assume that the whole program was very successful. Evidently the carrier (one of, possibly) for those will be, as expected, brand-new ICBM RS-28 Sarmat.

China absolutely lacks soft power, and cultural pull to gain its socioeconomic status. It all roots back to mainland Chinese people. I came across many mainland Chinese. There's nothing to be awe-inspiring to hold your breath and be reckoned with their behavior.

If you're ethnically Chinese, and look like an American Born Chinese (ABC), mainland Chinese will instantly make a snide remark at you for not knowing their 2000 ass-long years old Chinese civilization.

The fact that they don't know a particular historical landmark is nothing to chide about. But it's the entire landscape of the people when you look at it, tells a lot more about the softpower. Professionalism is what Chinese need to learn. I have a close mainland Chinese friend, Ivy educated, got an interview from Amazon and Alibaba. What did he say? "Alibaba lacks professionalism". He's now at Amazon.

All western-educated Chinese don't like their homeland Chinese behavior. The only force that drives them to go back to China after education is "money". I remember reading somewhere they even got a huge clash for western educated Chinese professors, receiving millions while home-grown professors are getting paid less.

1. Mainland Chinese holding doors for you? Dream on.
2. "Excuse me" is out of their vocabularies while they squeeze through narrow lanes. A typical excuse is "We don't say in Chinese", I asked what does it mean "不好意思" then?

The constructive criticism is never heard of. The notion of 2000 years old civilization and culture is the major throwback punchline for all the criticism they receive.

I only hope this kind of lady attitude takes over the whole of China sooner. Until then, Ciao softpower !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoOS92NZbwE

Have ever come across your mind that you are in the bad company? You should know there are 1.4 billion Chinese there are bound to be some bad apples. If I take your approach I can tell you that the American if is not worse definitely they are undesirable. Let’s take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won’t harm you.

That thought came into mind. The legend says, if you're walking down the street, 1 in 5 persons you meet are Chinese. Regarding social skills and communications, mainland Chinese in general suck at this. It's not language per se. Speaking in Mandarin as well. The reason why people notice is China is now at the world stage. People expect some kinds of noticeable authority from Chinese. If you're from Fiji, no one gives a damn what Fijians do. But we're talking about the world largest economy country that is deemed to take over America any time soon.

If you can't digest this fact, I can't help it. Soft power means when one thinks about a nation, there's a particular attraction they want to experience and absorb into their culture.

It's not dumpling soup they want to experience. It's not being able to walk at night kind of soft power.

Let’s take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won’t harm you

Let's be absolutely honest, and free from PC version. This is not an impression most Chinese have back home, isn't it? This issue, most Chinese associate with Black people. C'mon. Don't make it like you don't know it. Before you came to America, the first caution your parents said was "Be careful around Black people". How strong the softpower is. Even organized crimes and serial rapists, most Chinese want to migrate to the US. Irony.

Anyway, you might know by now, I'm not dissing on 1.4 billions Chinese. But to gain China softpower at international level, we all can agree that's the domain China has to work on a lot. If you think China already has one, I'm not denying your assumptions. Be free to have yours.

Then, I don't know how to approach a lightning annihilation of 1 million strong Kwantung Army in 1945. Did Russians approach that with a feeling of... inferiority? I am always extremely cautious with historical "parallels" and examples--unless huge, and knowledgeable allowances are made--an extremely difficult task, 90% of history's "lessons", "parallels" and "analogies" is rubbish. Akin to applying lessons of "operations" at the Battle Of Lepanto to a Salvo Model of missile exchange between two advance fleets with full EW and ECCM capabilities and advanced Combat Informational Control Systems in 2017. Surprisingly, there are people who do believe that there are some lessons in operations at Lepanto in 1571 that can be applied.

Japanese underestimated the Red Army in WW2.
Apparently due to feelings of superiority.

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.
Red Army liberation of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.

The 'superior' Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 'superior' Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

The unrepentant Japanese war criminals are still due another righteous retribution from Koreans and Chinese. When the two Koreas unite and US gives up its Imperial ambitions, maybe Chinese and Koreans can invade Japan and exact revenge for what the Japanese war criminals did to them.

I didn’t mean that financial trickery was America’s sole means of prosperity. What I meant was that without dollar hedgemoney, America as we know it would come crashing down.

America as we know it adjust (crashing down is too dramatic), but...

There would not be enough money to pay for the military abroad, no money to pay for welfare to keep the simmering black and brown tensions pacified, no means to push other countries around. America would still be a potent country with a vibrant economy, but America would be saddled with so many social problems, and yes the economy would need to change entirely. That in effect America would fall behind Russia and China dealing with all of this.

This is simply wrong.

The military abroad is paid in Dollars, and they are supplied largely by American produced goods.

Social welfare costs within the United States are likewise entirely denominated in Dollars.

What would in fact happen is that the value of the Dollar would decline substantially (not unprecedented--this was even deliberately undertaken by the Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan Administrations at various times). Imports would decline (resulting in a real loss of living standards ofc), and American export goods would be cheaper.

The idea that America would fall behind Russia and China in per capita terms because of this is absurd. US per capita GDP measured by purchasing power parity is nearly $60,000. While a sudden devaluation would no doubt cause many economic problems (inflation being #1), it would not collapse the economy since the USA does not have foreign debts denominated in foreign currencies. Even countries that do have such arrangements survive sharp devaluations just fine--witness the adjustment of the Russian economy to the sudden collapse of the Ruble in 2014.

You're more on the mark when you mention the USA would lose a powerful lever to bully other countries. This, however, would ultimately be to the gain of American people and producers.

America neutered Japan because the Yen was becoming too powerfull. It was starting to become to much of a threat as an alternate, so America’s elite made a deal with Japan’s elite to neuter the Yen in exchange for continued access to American markets. That’s why you never hear any talk about Japanese protectionism. A deal was struck that helped the elites in both countries.

The Japanese government has always sought to suppress the value of the Yen in order to boost exports...and also to increase Yen revenues of Japanese exporters in order to benefit Japanese capital.

In "neutering" the value of its own currency, Japan aids the competitiveness of its manufacturers.

And in fact, an exact opposite deal took place: the 1986 Plaza Accord, in which the G7 finance ministers agreed to allow the Dollar to DEPRECIATE in value. The Yen continued to soar against the dollar until the 1996 "Reverse Plaza Accord", by which time Japan's "sick man of Asia" propaganda caused Washington to feel sorry for Japan.

The Russia – China alliance was not created by America. That is rediculous. It was created through self interest from both parties. Going all the way back to Mackinder, it has been understood that the way to keep these countries in check was to prevent them from controlling Eurasia. The alliance is merely both countries maximizing their self interest.

Was this alliance greatly enhanced by the West targeting Russia and China? Absolutely so. But the alliance was not created by the west. Russia and China have key weaknesses that each help mitigate. So it would have happened anyway even if the west had been smarter.

We certainly can't know whether or not an alternate Western policy would've stopped the formation of the current Russia-China alliance, but it is a fact that the USSR and China had hostile relations from 1960-1989. Prior to the Second World War relations could hardly be called friendly either. The USSR intervened in China multiple times in the 20s and 30s, and the Russian Far East was annexed from the Qing Empire in Tsarist times.

I do know that there are a number of Eurasianists in Russia, and for that matter of a number of American strategists subscribe to Mackinder's views of geopolitics (the late Zbig comes to mind). I don't know to what degree geopolitics is appreciated in China.

That said, given the persistent Western orientation of Russia in the 20 years following the collapse of communism it seems real partnership with Russia was possible. Putin even made an offer to join NATO, and he was the first world leader to telephone George W. Bush after 9-11--and immediately offered Russian assistance. This coming only two years after NATO's assault on Serbia.

Russia, while a mighty nation, is vulnerable in that it is positioned between two colossi. Seems reasonable to me that the party (West or China) offering Russia the best deal stood to win something. 25 years of disastrous American foreign policy ensured that China not only offered the best deal, but was the only game in town for Russia.

Ok. I admit I was lazy in writing the post as I am on my phone. But what I am trying to say with America falling behind is not on a per capita basis, but that America will have to take a step back and retreat from the world stage while China and Russia would not.

You underestimate the effects of the petrodollar going away. Yes, imports would be more expensive. But also assets in America would crash which would include real estate and stocks. Pensions and social security would be scratched.

I think such a crash could come with a trade war with China, so domestics costs would also rise even more than just inflation.

After years of making itself a service based economy, America simply does not have the savings to retool it’s economy into something relevant in today’s day and age. Nor does it have the social cohesion to survive a big crash without tearing itself apart.

Over time America would recover, but keep in mind that America has not faced a real recession in forever. Every other time in the past, the fed has spared the economy from real pain.

Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair - Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

Chinese has bent backwards to help Snowden by letting him stay safely in HK and Macau, meanwhile sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode, while Snowden is not giving any leaks to the Chinese, most likely he is just anti-China as rest of China Hawks in the USA.

... sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode...

Really? Are there any accessible resources to corroborate your extraordinary claim?

Then, I don’t know how to approach a lightning annihilation of 1 million strong Kwantung Army in 1945. Did Russians approach that with a feeling of… inferiority? I am always extremely cautious with historical “parallels” and examples–unless huge, and knowledgeable allowances are made–an extremely difficult task, 90% of history’s “lessons”, “parallels” and “analogies” is rubbish. Akin to applying lessons of “operations” at the Battle Of Lepanto to a Salvo Model of missile exchange between two advance fleets with full EW and ECCM capabilities and advanced Combat Informational Control Systems in 2017. Surprisingly, there are people who do believe that there are some lessons in operations at Lepanto in 1571 that can be applied.

Then, I don’t know how to approach a lightning annihilation of 1 million strong Kwantung Army in 1945. Did Russians approach that with a feeling of… inferiority?

No, you should not approach it that way. That is too facile and a surprisingly weak rebuttal. The point obviously was not that there is a causual connection between racist attitudes and military outcomes (up or down).

Andrei Martyanov, it is not easy to build an alliance between Russia and China, I am not about falling into the Anglo's divide-and-conquer trap/trick to ruin that precious alliance, nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

Xi delivered a speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations as following."We are now living in a rapidly changing world...Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality." Chinese do not believe superiority, we believe win-win five principle of peace coexistence.

nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

What pride? Does me stating that American-made cars are better than Russian ones tell about my…American pride? Is pointing out the fact that Siemens MRI machines are still better than Russian-made ones makes my pride German? I work with cold hard facts and call them as I see them. Least of all I do this for anybody’s benefit–Anglo or anybody’s else–least of all unwittingly. My task is to be as close to the actual truth as possible. People will decide if I succeeded or failed. I am keenly aware in whose sails the winds of history are blowing.

You should know all those with a brain belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war also belive their endless trollng of fake news to put the world in constant fear are working with cold hard facts.

Have ever come across your mind that you are in the bad company? You should know there are 1.4 billion Chinese there are bound to be some bad apples. If I take your approach I can tell you that the American if is not worse definitely they are undesirable. Let's take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won't harm you.

That thought came into mind. The legend says, if you’re walking down the street, 1 in 5 persons you meet are Chinese. Regarding social skills and communications, mainland Chinese in general suck at this. It’s not language per se. Speaking in Mandarin as well. The reason why people notice is China is now at the world stage. People expect some kinds of noticeable authority from Chinese. If you’re from Fiji, no one gives a damn what Fijians do. But we’re talking about the world largest economy country that is deemed to take over America any time soon.

If you can’t digest this fact, I can’t help it. Soft power means when one thinks about a nation, there’s a particular attraction they want to experience and absorb into their culture.

It’s not dumpling soup they want to experience. It’s not being able to walk at night kind of soft power.

Let’s take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won’t harm you

Let’s be absolutely honest, and free from PC version. This is not an impression most Chinese have back home, isn’t it? This issue, most Chinese associate with Black people. C’mon. Don’t make it like you don’t know it. Before you came to America, the first caution your parents said was “Be careful around Black people”. How strong the softpower is. Even organized crimes and serial rapists, most Chinese want to migrate to the US. Irony.

Anyway, you might know by now, I’m not dissing on 1.4 billions Chinese. But to gain China softpower at international level, we all can agree that’s the domain China has to work on a lot. If you think China already has one, I’m not denying your assumptions. Be free to have yours.

You should know Rome is not built in one day, the criticism on Chinese soft power is just a replay of the criticism on Chinese economy, the contradictions make one wonder do they really say what they mean?

Russia underestimated the Japanese. Apparently due to feelings of superiority.

(Russian Navy, Japan, Port Arthur, Andrei.)

Japanese underestimated the Red Army in WW2.
Apparently due to feelings of superiority.

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.
Red Army liberation of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.

The ‘superior’ Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 ‘superior’ Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

The unrepentant Japanese war criminals are still due another righteous retribution from Koreans and Chinese. When the two Koreas unite and US gives up its Imperial ambitions, maybe Chinese and Koreans can invade Japan and exact revenge for what the Japanese war criminals did to them.

I like the premise of your article, but I don't agree with your focus on the military. Economic progress does not automatically translate to a better, indigenously developed military, but it does lean that way over time.

What Beijing really lacks is any knowledge on how to project soft, cultural and diplomatic power in subtle, effective and modern ways. For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections. Not because there aren't hackers in China, but because both China's government and society lack the mindset, understanding, and experience to do something like that. If they tried, they would fail because it would be something extremely obvious and ham-fisted with no plausible deniability. Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media.

I often tell Chinese nationalists back home that China does not know how to play Great Game politics on the international stage, and they respond that a growing economy will fix everything. This isn't so.

Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against a west that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes.

The old men in charge don't seem to recognize this problem, let alone know what to do about it. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before China can be a true superpower.

…subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy,

And what exactly that alternative will look like?
Or, better, how would one describe and explain that alternative to, say, an average middle class person in the West?
In simple language….how the life of an average person would look like in that alternative?

A very thoughtful comment. 3 points in response:1. China's recent rise. Contextually, I think you mischaracterized. Check out Gunter Frank's ReOrient, 5,000 years of history.' Essentially, China has a long-term cycle of about 500 years up and 250 years recession. Their recession began before the industrial revolution, around 1750. 2. I think it a mistake to think mainly/only in terms of 'Russia' and 'China'. What they are doing, indeed I suspect have done, is agreed to help create a new civilisation, namely Eurasia. This is the ultimate Great Game play, moreover one which at some point hopes to include the rest of Europe and all the Middle East, hence 'Eurasia' or The Big Island in Great Game terms.

They have used our financial system for a while but once they can kick out our BIS-based banks our hold on them will be greatly diminished. Once they both have strong defense, our nuclear threat capacity will also be diminished. Once their new quantum-based internet system goes online, any time now, which is unhackable with any current techniques, our ability to mess with them will be further diminished. Once all the pipelines are in place, our ability to divide and conquer in the Middle East will be diminished. Once the train routes are in place and working well, later on with high speeds between Beijing, Moscow, Berlin and Lisbon etc., the reality of a Eurasian civilisation will be obvious to all. This is the biggest thing that has happened geopolitically since ....... I don't know, but perhaps since the last Ice Age which wiped out ancient civilisations which we know only by ruins which tell us little.

3. Mandarin system. In terms of China's strength, I have been most impressed by their political system's clear stability. I don't understand what they believe in and so forth, nor how fair/unfair/inefficient/efficient they are, but they seem to have presided over the biggest economic and infrastructural transformation boom in world history the past few decades and done so with extraordinary political stability. I am not aware of any equivalent to this in western history in the past millenia. For us a few decades of relative stability is exceptional. I am not sure if America has ever had more than a few years at a time - which means no true stability - though perhaps you could argue we have been relatively stable since after all those assassinations in the 60's and the Deep State Plutocracy has run the regime pretty much without resistance since then, so about 45 years. Perhaps stable, then, but also involving peak and decline with no true revival in sight.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based. The competition to get into lower level schools is ferocious and the main reason so many come to western schools. They can't get into the best ones in China where they have 100 applicants for each place. Then their one-party system means that internal competition to rise through the ranks there is intense and by the time someone gets to the top levels they are extremely experienced, well known (warts and all) and ready for the next level. We have nothing like that except our entrenched Deep State operatives who operate in the shadows much more than they do. This system is rarely analysed but it is managing about 1.5 billion people going through rapid, massive change and doing so rather well. No other civilisation right now has their experience in managing such large undertakings which is why they just got a contract to build an entire city in the Middle East a few months ago. Not Russia, not the US, nobody could have put forward a plan backed with demonstrated experience.

But again: this really isn't about either Russia or China alone. This is a Great Game play. And unless the 'Anglo-Zionists' spoil the fun by dropping nukes here and there, they have already won simple because of geography and shared vision. It must be very exciting to live in central Eurasia right now.

The Chinese Mandarin system is merit-based.

Merit based?
That means the level of overall corruption in Chinese society is low?
What a statement.

No, it means that the civil service has traditionally attracted talented people, and rising through its ranks indicates that the individual performed well at every point along the way.
Have some cheated and lied about their accomplishments? Sure.
Are those subject to demotion, ignomy, and in egregious cases, incarceration? Sure, and worse.

Japanese underestimated the Red Army in WW2.
Apparently due to feelings of superiority.

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.
Red Army liberation of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.

The 'superior' Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 'superior' Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

The unrepentant Japanese war criminals are still due another righteous retribution from Koreans and Chinese. When the two Koreas unite and US gives up its Imperial ambitions, maybe Chinese and Koreans can invade Japan and exact revenge for what the Japanese war criminals did to them.

The ‘superior’ Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 ‘superior’ Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

Makes sense.

As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans.

Could somebody say “some defense of Rodina”?

…righteous retribution….

An interesting concept.
Why stop at Japanese?
Why not, if practicable, continue with “Anglos”?
OK, perhaps not Americans. Nukes and such.
But, Aussies could be good enough I guess.

{As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans.}

And as the T-34s rolling into Berlin in 1945, as hapless 15 year olds and senior citizens tried in vain to stop them, with 80% of Wehrmacht, their best and toughest, having been chopped up by the formerly surrendering Red Army.
{Could somebody say “some defense of Rodina”?}

Sure: check the picture below. See if you can figure out whose flag it is that is being raised over the ruins of Reichstag.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Reichstag_flag_original.jpg

{But, Aussies could be good enough I guess.}

So how many millions did Aussies kill and murder, like the Imperial Japanese did when they occupied most of East Asia?
What was the Aussie version of the Massacre of Nanking?
How many 100s of 1,000 of young Korean, Chinese, and Filipina girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Aussies?
What was their version of Unit 731, the Imperial Japanese 'medical' unit which conducted lethal experiments on unwilling victims captured by their troops?
Need I go on?

Interesting, that makes quite a bit more sense than the narrative I've been led to believe.

One Chinese company was able to produce pen balls shortly after the media made a fuss over this issue premier Li Keqiang brought up. The reason why premier Li raised the topic in the first place that China could not produce pen balls was mainly to urge state-owned enterprises to commit to industrial upgrading, as well as to set a good example for small private companies which mostly focused on quantity rather than quality at the time. Pen balls production is not that difficult but requires some research and investment which may not be worth it given how small the whole market of pen balls is. The chinese were practical in that they were happy to import pen balls from japan/EU so long as they could still make profits of making pens.

The change from pre-industrial to post-industrial nevertheless is a dramatic and fundamental one. The whole world was at the feet of the European powers (including their New World offshoot), not just China, once the industrial revolution and related population increases kicked in, and never recovered until they had caught up with it, which China is only now doing, and no other peoples began to do until Japan in the late C19th.

Yes, and that was your point earlier. My reply is more of an adjunct or footnote than argument, however interesting. To add a little: the main thrust of the conquest of the Americas was by Spain and what transpired was the mass mining and export of gold and silver (at horrific cost to the gunless natives both in illness and being systematically worked to death). This gold and silver was not simply to fill up Spanish coffers. No, it was to be able to open up trade routes with the Chinese Empire and diaspora, the Big Dog in the known world. Early mariners arriving in Indian ports - and later Indonesian and later Chinese - described ports larger than any in Europe, indeed large ports like Mumbai were described as containing more ships than all the ships in Europe. Mindblowing. But Europe had no goods to offer in trade given that Asian crafts, spices, workmanship was many generations ahead of our own. We had no silks, no food, no other textiles. Portuguese and Dutch used gold and silver to buy spices, silks and furniture from the Chinese to take back to Europe in trade. Probably some Spanish did too (don't recall those details), but for sure once they found silver and gold in the Americas, that's what it was used for by the Spanish: trade with China.

Then what happened? The gold and silver ran out, some time in the early 1700's (I think). So now this is where it gets interesting. Some time in the mid 1700's, an Englishman commissioned an engineer to design and make a special machine (Spinning Jenny) which could make cloth faster and cheaper than by human labour. Why? So that his ships (many of which built in India because they made better ships back then) could undercut Indian cotton manufacturers (mainly housewives) and thus he would have something to trade in Asia given there was no more gold and silver to be had by plundering Spanish ships returning from the Americas. So he would sell the cotton to the Indians - which were a densely populated, sophisticated and rich multi-national continent - in exchange for gold or silver, the main currency of the Chinese-based Empire, and then continue on through Asia buying spices and so forth with that earned currency. That is what the Spinning Jenny was made for: to raise funds with which to buy Chinese product lines.

And THAT was a major catalyst for the industrial revolution and the rest, as they say, is history.

I think this is a Chinese play (and a very wise one and potentially revolutionary I agree), which Russia has been somewhat ambivalent about, ultimately only coming aboard because of the recent unrelenting hostility and aggression by the US regime and its Euro poodles leaving them no alternative. Putin himself, I think, always wanted to go the other way.

I suspect you are correct. However, although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology which is more than symbiosis, it means that each side has elements vital to the survival of the other and they have deliberately set it up this way because for both of them a strong real Eurasia is ultimately the best thing and also it makes it impossible for them to go to war with each other. Something like that. So even if Putin did want to join Europe finally after the botched-up 20th century Anglo-Zionist or 'Maritime Powers' excesses, when the pivot happened it turned into a truly historic event, something for sure he can't do with the West given our political system features mainly unelected self-serving elites operating shadow governments whose policies mainly involve war-mongering, murder, destabilization and generally sowing panic and chaos.

As to the Mandarin system and your remarks, I certainly wouldn't predict that sort of thing, but was merely remarking that given how stable their system is even whilst managing much larger populations than any other (except India) and whilst undergoing such epochal change, that maybe we have something to learn from them. Although I didn't say it, have felt for years and feel more strongly now that the best thing to do would be to get rid of these ridiculous two-or-more political party elections. So easy to corrupt. So much tomfoolery. No way to run countries.

… although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology …

No, not that article, but the Double Helix notion in your one is similar. The word he used to describe it also came from biology, something like zigirotic, I just can't remember. Rare word. In any case, it means that each partner has elements of vital necessity to the other's survival and well being; they become mutually interdependent and therefore cannot possibly betray/conquer etc since in so doing they would harm themselves. Most of the article went through the policy details of how that is being effected, much like the one you linked. Come to think of it, though, I might well have read it on the Saker site.....

What I am suggesting is that this goes beyond a mere balance of power marriage of convenience type arrangement between States. There is an over-arching, long-term vision involved, so that this positive entanglement between two very different territories and cultures serves a higher purpose, namely the first true Eurasian Civilisation.

The Mongols took a stab at it but his family immediately started squabbling as soon as he died. The Chinese had a shot in the 1400's but it was too much of a reach, so once Admiral He's fleet was almost wiped out by a tsunami, Emperor Yung Lo decided it was a sign that China should remain within certain bounds. Today I think the policy is that it is for the Han people, a multi-tribal ethnic group with dark hair and epicanthic-fold eyes, i.e. Asian types. Some of them feel this is all Asians including Koreans, Japanese etc. And no doubt this might at some point include indigenous peoples in South America - for indeed genetic testing does indeed show clear linkage - and many might not like that, but generally speaking they do not harbour the ambition of marching across Eurasia and conquering the Germans and Portuguese (unlike Stalin, who publicly stated in the 1930's that this was his goal - making WWII inevitable), or Arabs or Africans. They are a people and that people will stay within natural borders to a certain extent. This is important because Russia includes vast, largely unpopulated territories whereas China is uber-crowded. They must have been tempted to invade and conquer. This alliance negates that.

But again, the big deal is that by joining together in this way, they open the door to a far-ranging continental collaboration to make the first Eurasian civilisation in world history. A truly epochal step forward. And there is no reason for this to threaten anyone else, indeed it is the next wave forward in human history which will raise all other boats, including those of the (currently belligerent) Maritime Powers.

Chinese has bent backwards to help Snowden by letting him stay safely in HK and Macau, meanwhile sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode, while Snowden is not giving any leaks to the Chinese, most likely he is just anti-China as rest of China Hawks in the USA.

… sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode…

Really? Are there any accessible resources to corroborate your extraordinary claim?

Stop being navies, the among of false flag ops and unscrupulous activities the American and their thug minions conducted in regime changes and introducing democracy around the world make the assassination not a surprise but routine. The failed Snowden assassination by the CIA was all over in HK newspaper like the SCMP. You should know there are newspapers other than the fake news media in the USA and its minions.

… sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode…

That's very interesting. I'd never heard a whiff of such a shocking story in my MSM newspapers, and when I casually Googled it, I got a piece in the respectable Foreign Policy publication, ridiculing and debunking it as a ridiculous rumor/hoax that somehow got in various Chinese newspapers.

A few years ago, I would have accepted that and discounted the story, but our MSM has proven itself to be so dishonest and incompetent, I just can't be sure.

If others spend some time investigating the matter, I'll be curious whether they think it somewhat plausible that it might have actually happened.

Japanese underestimated the Red Army in WW2.
Apparently due to feelings of superiority.

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.
Red Army liberation of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.

The 'superior' Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 'superior' Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

The unrepentant Japanese war criminals are still due another righteous retribution from Koreans and Chinese. When the two Koreas unite and US gives up its Imperial ambitions, maybe Chinese and Koreans can invade Japan and exact revenge for what the Japanese war criminals did to them.

At the Tokyo show trials all the non USA judges judged ‘not guilty’.
The USA judges overruled them.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

A hugely interesting question to ponder, isn't it? judging by the speed with which China buys Russian technology--they do consider such a contingency, but also--this shopping spree answers a very serious question: China knows about deficiencies of her high end weapon systems. She desperately needs (and it is being delivered as I type this) pretty much everything across the whole defensive spectrum--from SU-35s, all types of Anti-Shipping Cruise Missiles to S-400 AD complexes and all sensors and combat management systems which come with it. It is a huge Red Flag.

http://tass.com/defense/932131

And then, of course, today's announcement (in Russian) that Russia will rush IOC for S-500 to 2018.

https://vz.ru/news/2017/7/9/877933.html

This is, btw, huge and it tells us that Russia understands that all of those sold weapon systems will be, of course, copied. Chinese copies, of course, will not be on par, as usual, with originals but even those copies' capabilities will be enough for deterrence. This is a very ally-wise approach and, hopefully, Chinese understand that. In the same time Russia already is readying new generation systems (from T-50 5th Generation fighter to S-500 and others) to go IOC. The news about S-500, however, are stunning.

As per possible naval clash--if PLAN ventures beyond First Island Chain--it will be sunk and not by US Navy's carrier aviation. US Navy's as well as Japanese submarine forces are among top 3 best in the world. They are world-class and better than Chinese counterparts in most important respects. That is a reality.

That’s hopefully as USSR/ Russia has long history of providing and giving with later experience of having to write off lots of debt and having China previously bite USSR back after USSR basically helped to build Chinese industrial base foundation, providing military assistance and the very base for Mao to take over the rest of China in Manchuria.
I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what’s being done.

China wasn't able to meet your high standards for 'gratitude' for the same reason that Poland and the Baltic states have never been all that grateful to the USSR for their liberation from Nazi Germany: because the USSR leadership was uniquely sociopathic and whatever assistance they conferred, they more than negated by what they took away. Russia represents the most egregious case-study of 'great state autism' in modern history.

I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what’s being done.

1. She coordinates with Russia internationally (Xi's visit to Moscow prior to Putin meeting with Trump);
2. She opens her markets to Russia, e.g. Power of Siberia gas pipe-line should be ready in 2019, after that--this is mutually profitable project and it has massive, and I mean--massive, geopolitical ramifications for the combined West, especially Europe, and especially to two very nasty and Russo-phobic entities such as Poland and Ukraine;
3. There are other joint projects which are beneficial to both sides, e.g. COMAC C929;
4. Most importantly, China does cover Russia's Far East and balances this whole triangle: Russia-China-West.

If properly managed, this could be extremely beneficial for both sides. But I already addressed it in my blog some time ago:

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times

Except that simply isn't true. China has repeatedly been the "number one" globally, it just hasn't had that status since the technological advances stemming from Europe's innovations a few hundred years ago made actual global empires possible. And that's solely because, for various reasons, it has never caught up with those innovations and their ramifications - until now.

As I noted above, the likely rise of China to global number one is not something new, it's in one sense just a return to what was often the normal condition in the world, prior to the C18th or so.

There's no reason to be upset at facing that self-evident reality. It doesn't disrespect the real achievements of nations like Russia and Britain. Nor does one need to be some sort of China obsessive or worshipper to recognise reality. It's just how it is.

China was as you say number one globally by default when the West went through Dark Ages and early early Medieval period. Otherwise we mean different things by One. I mean many things China is going to replace USA as the world most influential in all aspects power and I just do not see it.
Chinese history as I stated full of examples when China rose for brief periods and then crashed or was crashed. Momentum never was sustained and China always is far more concerned about internal stability over external influence. Basically, I believe that as Andrei posted regarding what constitutes state power China lacks in few departments not only technological ones but in national character department and cultural department which I think is pretty crucial. It is all in history books.

As "end justifies the means".
I guess that includes the treatment of those P.O.W.s after they got back into USSR.
I mean, who cares for an individual (multiplied by millions...) when we have a desired ending? Masses are just......expendable resources.

Merit based?
That means the level of overall corruption in Chinese society is low?
What a statement.

That means the level of overall corruption in Chinese society is low?

No, it means that the civil service has traditionally attracted talented people, and rising through its ranks indicates that the individual performed well at every point along the way.
Have some cheated and lied about their accomplishments? Sure.
Are those subject to demotion, ignomy, and in egregious cases, incarceration? Sure, and worse.

It is correct to say that it is not a one sided alliance and that in many many ways Russia is ahead of China.

But I don't really see the significance of the things you posted. So what if China does not have the world's most advanced military tech? America did not have the most advanced military tech either for a very long time into its history, yet America's path to Superpowerdom was set in stone much sooner than its military bonifides.

Wasn't it the cold war of the 80's where Russia tried to out spend the west in getting the best military tech what bankrupted Russia?

To me, China merely needs a military strong enough to protect herself and nothing more, because China has no plans to engage in military adventureism ala Desert Storm.

So China put all its military resources into missle tech and things like can deny enemies the ability to hurt China. China does not have the means to go toe to toe with Western planes, so this project is on the back burner while they spend money on more important things like High Speed Rail.

To me, Russia sees itself as more of a conventional Superpower. If Russia wants to go to war anywhere on Earth, Russia will have the means to do so. China does not. It merely wants the means to defend itself.

The USSR was not bankrupted. Its leaders took the voluntary decision to transform with no compulsion to do so, and the transformation turned into collapse.

I like the premise of your article, but I don't agree with your focus on the military. Economic progress does not automatically translate to a better, indigenously developed military, but it does lean that way over time.

What Beijing really lacks is any knowledge on how to project soft, cultural and diplomatic power in subtle, effective and modern ways. For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections. Not because there aren't hackers in China, but because both China's government and society lack the mindset, understanding, and experience to do something like that. If they tried, they would fail because it would be something extremely obvious and ham-fisted with no plausible deniability. Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media.

I often tell Chinese nationalists back home that China does not know how to play Great Game politics on the international stage, and they respond that a growing economy will fix everything. This isn't so.

Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against a west that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes.

The old men in charge don't seem to recognize this problem, let alone know what to do about it. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before China can be a true superpower.

[For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections.]

Nor did Russia, nor could anyone, that’s fake news. Israel controls US politics by owning politicians, not by anything to do with elections.
Bad a press as China gets, it still gets a better press than Russia. Shouldn’t one conclude that China’s soft power is better than Russia’s?

Re: 'nor could anyone': now that there are paper-free electronic voting machines in a critical distribution of counties across the US, unfortunately what you say is wrong. It has been demonstrated publicly that these machines are extremely easy to skew, and it has been shown how they do it - they can plug in the desired outcome in terms of percentage spread and then fix the numbers, county by county, to get the desired outcome. The whole thing is designed to be hackable, that's why there is no paper trail nor full monitoring from beginning to end of the count. It's a scam!!! US elections are a complete and utter farce. Indeed the US is turning rapidly into a failed state. I personally still can't decide if Trump is going to clean some of that up or if he's a WWE wrestler type putting on a totally fake show. If they throw away those machine and have real elections, that would be a sign that something authentic is going on. If they dismantle the CIA, close down the Fed, hey, we are on the way. Otherwise, the only issue is whether or not US-Israel will exercise the Samson option as they go into inevitable decline.

It's not so bad, though. If the US were to become a normal country again, it would be much better for everyone, including 99% of Americans. If that's the meaning of America First, it would be a good thing.

It doesn't look like it though. Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too: put Americans first with better trade deals, tax policies, healthy industries etc. and at the same time flex international muscle and bolster the military-industrial complex and essentially meddle in other countries' destinies. Sad!

His supporters think he is playing 4 dimensional chess and is placating the bad guys for a while - since they still have the upper hand - and later will turn it all around. I hope they are right, though doubt it...

The ‘superior’ Japanese Imperial scum were routed.
KIA ratio of 8-to-1 in favour of the Red Army.
About 600,000 ‘superior’ Imperial Japanese scum surrendered to the Red Army.
Some Bushido.

Makes sense.

As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans.

Could somebody say "some defense of Rodina"?

...righteous retribution....

An interesting concept.
Why stop at Japanese?
Why not, if practicable, continue with "Anglos"?
OK, perhaps not Americans. Nukes and such.
But, Aussies could be good enough I guess.

{As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans.}

And as the T-34s rolling into Berlin in 1945, as hapless 15 year olds and senior citizens tried in vain to stop them, with 80% of Wehrmacht, their best and toughest, having been chopped up by the formerly surrendering Red Army.
{Could somebody say “some defense of Rodina”?}

Sure: check the picture below. See if you can figure out whose flag it is that is being raised over the ruins of Reichstag.

{But, Aussies could be good enough I guess.}

So how many millions did Aussies kill and murder, like the Imperial Japanese did when they occupied most of East Asia?
What was the Aussie version of the Massacre of Nanking?
How many 100s of 1,000 of young Korean, Chinese, and Filipina girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Aussies?
What was their version of Unit 731, the Imperial Japanese ‘medical’ unit which conducted lethal experiments on unwilling victims captured by their troops?
Need I go on?

Depends.
The idea of "righteous retribution" is interesting.
You appear keen on that for Japanese.
Now, a lot of people in Australia (and UK) are quite aware of Japanese atrocities in Pacific and there is feeling in some circles that justice wasn't properly delivered after Japanese defeat.
My point is that, taking human nature in consideration, should China become strong enough to exact that "righteous retribution", it would not stop there.
That's how the world works.
But, no point into going into that because I don't think it will ever happen.
I don't see China capable of projecting unconventional power overseas for quite some time.
Just an opinion.

... although I cannot remember the author, I read a well researched paper a couple of years ago analyzing the truly extraordinary depth and breadth of the China-Russia alliance. He had a special word for it from biology ...

Was it this one?
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/fpid1fhd6nv59/China_Russia_Double_Helix

No, not that article, but the Double Helix notion in your one is similar. The word he used to describe it also came from biology, something like zigirotic, I just can’t remember. Rare word. In any case, it means that each partner has elements of vital necessity to the other’s survival and well being; they become mutually interdependent and therefore cannot possibly betray/conquer etc since in so doing they would harm themselves. Most of the article went through the policy details of how that is being effected, much like the one you linked. Come to think of it, though, I might well have read it on the Saker site…..

What I am suggesting is that this goes beyond a mere balance of power marriage of convenience type arrangement between States. There is an over-arching, long-term vision involved, so that this positive entanglement between two very different territories and cultures serves a higher purpose, namely the first true Eurasian Civilisation.

The Mongols took a stab at it but his family immediately started squabbling as soon as he died. The Chinese had a shot in the 1400′s but it was too much of a reach, so once Admiral He’s fleet was almost wiped out by a tsunami, Emperor Yung Lo decided it was a sign that China should remain within certain bounds. Today I think the policy is that it is for the Han people, a multi-tribal ethnic group with dark hair and epicanthic-fold eyes, i.e. Asian types. Some of them feel this is all Asians including Koreans, Japanese etc. And no doubt this might at some point include indigenous peoples in South America – for indeed genetic testing does indeed show clear linkage – and many might not like that, but generally speaking they do not harbour the ambition of marching across Eurasia and conquering the Germans and Portuguese (unlike Stalin, who publicly stated in the 1930′s that this was his goal – making WWII inevitable), or Arabs or Africans. They are a people and that people will stay within natural borders to a certain extent. This is important because Russia includes vast, largely unpopulated territories whereas China is uber-crowded. They must have been tempted to invade and conquer. This alliance negates that.

But again, the big deal is that by joining together in this way, they open the door to a far-ranging continental collaboration to make the first Eurasian civilisation in world history. A truly epochal step forward. And there is no reason for this to threaten anyone else, indeed it is the next wave forward in human history which will raise all other boats, including those of the (currently belligerent) Maritime Powers.

That's hopefully as USSR/ Russia has long history of providing and giving with later experience of having to write off lots of debt and having China previously bite USSR back after USSR basically helped to build Chinese industrial base foundation, providing military assistance and the very base for Mao to take over the rest of China in Manchuria.
I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what's being done.

China wasn’t able to meet your high standards for ‘gratitude’ for the same reason that Poland and the Baltic states have never been all that grateful to the USSR for their liberation from Nazi Germany: because the USSR leadership was uniquely sociopathic and whatever assistance they conferred, they more than negated by what they took away. Russia represents the most egregious case-study of ‘great state autism’ in modern history.

[For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections.]

Nor did Russia, nor could anyone, that's fake news. Israel controls US politics by owning politicians, not by anything to do with elections.
Bad a press as China gets, it still gets a better press than Russia. Shouldn't one conclude that China's soft power is better than Russia's?

Re: ‘nor could anyone’: now that there are paper-free electronic voting machines in a critical distribution of counties across the US, unfortunately what you say is wrong. It has been demonstrated publicly that these machines are extremely easy to skew, and it has been shown how they do it – they can plug in the desired outcome in terms of percentage spread and then fix the numbers, county by county, to get the desired outcome. The whole thing is designed to be hackable, that’s why there is no paper trail nor full monitoring from beginning to end of the count. It’s a scam!!! US elections are a complete and utter farce. Indeed the US is turning rapidly into a failed state. I personally still can’t decide if Trump is going to clean some of that up or if he’s a WWE wrestler type putting on a totally fake show. If they throw away those machine and have real elections, that would be a sign that something authentic is going on. If they dismantle the CIA, close down the Fed, hey, we are on the way. Otherwise, the only issue is whether or not US-Israel will exercise the Samson option as they go into inevitable decline.

It’s not so bad, though. If the US were to become a normal country again, it would be much better for everyone, including 99% of Americans. If that’s the meaning of America First, it would be a good thing.

It doesn’t look like it though. Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too: put Americans first with better trade deals, tax policies, healthy industries etc. and at the same time flex international muscle and bolster the military-industrial complex and essentially meddle in other countries’ destinies. Sad!

His supporters think he is playing 4 dimensional chess and is placating the bad guys for a while – since they still have the upper hand – and later will turn it all around. I hope they are right, though doubt it…

... sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode...

Really? Are there any accessible resources to corroborate your extraordinary claim?

Stop being navies, the among of false flag ops and unscrupulous activities the American and their thug minions conducted in regime changes and introducing democracy around the world make the assassination not a surprise but routine. The failed Snowden assassination by the CIA was all over in HK newspaper like the SCMP. You should know there are newspapers other than the fake news media in the USA and its minions.

nor should you let the blind Russian pride to put a wedge in that alliance unwittingly for the Anglo.

What pride? Does me stating that American-made cars are better than Russian ones tell about my...American pride? Is pointing out the fact that Siemens MRI machines are still better than Russian-made ones makes my pride German? I work with cold hard facts and call them as I see them. Least of all I do this for anybody's benefit--Anglo or anybody's else--least of all unwittingly. My task is to be as close to the actual truth as possible. People will decide if I succeeded or failed. I am keenly aware in whose sails the winds of history are blowing.

You should know all those with a brain belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war also belive their endless trollng of fake news to put the world in constant fear are working with cold hard facts.

I am aware of that, hence my public "coming out" in 2014 when I understood that what combined West was committing in Ukraine was a testimony to a complete blindness (not to speak of delusions of a grandeur) and ignorance--I just wanted to contribute what I could, however tiny bit, in educating people on the nature of the beast. As last three years dramatically demonstrated I was correct, including identifying total incompetence of US (not to speak of European) "elites", establishment whatever one wants to call it. The systemic epistemic crisis is upon combined West.

...subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy,

And what exactly that alternative will look like?
Or, better, how would one describe and explain that alternative to, say, an average middle class person in the West?
In simple language....how the life of an average person would look like in that alternative?

That thought came into mind. The legend says, if you're walking down the street, 1 in 5 persons you meet are Chinese. Regarding social skills and communications, mainland Chinese in general suck at this. It's not language per se. Speaking in Mandarin as well. The reason why people notice is China is now at the world stage. People expect some kinds of noticeable authority from Chinese. If you're from Fiji, no one gives a damn what Fijians do. But we're talking about the world largest economy country that is deemed to take over America any time soon.

If you can't digest this fact, I can't help it. Soft power means when one thinks about a nation, there's a particular attraction they want to experience and absorb into their culture.

It's not dumpling soup they want to experience. It's not being able to walk at night kind of soft power.

Let’s take the number of population in incarceration as a yard stick (USA has largest incarceration population in the world), the impoliteness of Chinese is more preferable to the serial killers, rapists, drug dealers, gun tottering kids killers, etc. in the American prisons and Guantanamo like camps, at least the Chinese won’t harm you

Let's be absolutely honest, and free from PC version. This is not an impression most Chinese have back home, isn't it? This issue, most Chinese associate with Black people. C'mon. Don't make it like you don't know it. Before you came to America, the first caution your parents said was "Be careful around Black people". How strong the softpower is. Even organized crimes and serial rapists, most Chinese want to migrate to the US. Irony.

Anyway, you might know by now, I'm not dissing on 1.4 billions Chinese. But to gain China softpower at international level, we all can agree that's the domain China has to work on a lot. If you think China already has one, I'm not denying your assumptions. Be free to have yours.

You should know Rome is not built in one day, the criticism on Chinese soft power is just a replay of the criticism on Chinese economy, the contradictions make one wonder do they really say what they mean?

If America had not opened its vast, wealthy market of 300-320 million people, China would have nothing to build, because nobody would buy the products it built.

For all its warts, America was the economic engine of the world for decades.
The enterprising, industrious America lifted all boats.
Japan, South Korea, and now China owe their prosperity to the American consumer.
Oftentimes, at the expense of the American workers and (former) American middle class.

... sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode...

Really? Are there any accessible resources to corroborate your extraordinary claim?

… sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode…

That’s very interesting. I’d never heard a whiff of such a shocking story in my MSM newspapers, and when I casually Googled it, I got a piece in the respectable Foreign Policy publication, ridiculing and debunking it as a ridiculous rumor/hoax that somehow got in various Chinese newspapers.

A few years ago, I would have accepted that and discounted the story, but our MSM has proven itself to be so dishonest and incompetent, I just can’t be sure.

If others spend some time investigating the matter, I’ll be curious whether they think it somewhat plausible that it might have actually happened.

Chinese builds American destroys. American is the final form of 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil empire.

If America had not opened its vast, wealthy market of 300-320 million people, China would have nothing to build, because nobody would buy the products it built.

For all its warts, America was the economic engine of the world for decades.
The enterprising, industrious America lifted all boats.
Japan, South Korea, and now China owe their prosperity to the American consumer.
Oftentimes, at the expense of the American workers and (former) American middle class.

Europe and its offshoot North America is where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of the very madness of colonialism, of the crusades and illicit drug and slave trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations - all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the 'Western existence and culture', something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

The founding dogmas of the 'Western existence and culture' are based deception, its history on false pathos and insincere heroism. Claiming credit where credit is not due like everybody else owes their prosperity to the American is consistent with their tradition and culture. It is the same as claiming bombing, killing and exploiting you on the fake news is humanitarian intervention, so that their crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crime will never be addressed or criticized.

BTW American is neither the first one to invest in China, the biggest trading partner to China, nor they are the biggest FDI in China. The overseas Chinese is the one bootstrapped China's economic miracle, the overseas Chinese took the risks and the American reaps the benefits, the American is a freeloader but they always want to claim the credit where credit is not due. American sanctions and embargo China the most.

Chinese, inspired mainly by commercialism, required light endeavour from America and the West to acquire as a superficial trading counterparty, whereas Russia, the more natural ally in the long run, receives rough treatment in the public psyche for reasons, some well-known, other entirely obscure in my comprehension.

Henry Wallace saw this instantly and deeply. Apart from the established reasons why Wallace’s vision never found the purchase it ought to have, I wonder if a Russian reluctance to the English language (yet French a national passion of sorts), has anything to do with it? Cultural ties are primally driven by language and genetics; I wonder if any Russians/Russophiles care to comment on this?

man, I see how easily a rift between china and russia can form just from the comments here alone. just a label like “senior partner” can bring up all sorts of nationalistic jingo/rhetoric from both sides. if the elites of both sides feels this way, this alliance can be easily broken. easily. no wonder the western elites aren’t worry about it.

and then you have israelis like sam calling china a “superficial trading counter party,” russia a “natural ally.” this shows that israel fears the alliance too all the more reason to stick with the alliance.

I've never seen Xi Jinping call Russia a lesser partner; I suspect this is indeed part of the narrative to drive a wedge. Note that Andrei Martyanov also calls this the view of Western analysts; that said, there is certainly some historical acrimony but I think it can be overcome.

The Russians and Chinese are both hard headed people which is why the bickering :). Even amongst Russians only and Chinese only they like to bicker amongst themselves. I find this incredibly annoying to deal with but it is how both people are.

But both people's have suffered tremendously from the empire and I think both people's understand that so I wouldn't read into it too much.

If America had not opened its vast, wealthy market of 300-320 million people, China would have nothing to build, because nobody would buy the products it built.

For all its warts, America was the economic engine of the world for decades.
The enterprising, industrious America lifted all boats.
Japan, South Korea, and now China owe their prosperity to the American consumer.
Oftentimes, at the expense of the American workers and (former) American middle class.

Europe and its offshoot North America is where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of the very madness of colonialism, of the crusades and illicit drug and slave trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

The founding dogmas of the ‘Western existence and culture’ are based deception, its history on false pathos and insincere heroism. Claiming credit where credit is not due like everybody else owes their prosperity to the American is consistent with their tradition and culture. It is the same as claiming bombing, killing and exploiting you on the fake news is humanitarian intervention, so that their crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crime will never be addressed or criticized.

BTW American is neither the first one to invest in China, the biggest trading partner to China, nor they are the biggest FDI in China. The overseas Chinese is the one bootstrapped China’s economic miracle, the overseas Chinese took the risks and the American reaps the benefits, the American is a freeloader but they always want to claim the credit where credit is not due. American sanctions and embargo China the most.

man, I see how easily a rift between china and russia can form just from the comments here alone. just a label like "senior partner" can bring up all sorts of nationalistic jingo/rhetoric from both sides. if the elites of both sides feels this way, this alliance can be easily broken. easily. no wonder the western elites aren't worry about it.

and then you have israelis like sam calling china a "superficial trading counter party," russia a "natural ally." this shows that israel fears the alliance too :) all the more reason to stick with the alliance.

Russia, don't get rape again like during the 90s decade.

I’ve never seen Xi Jinping call Russia a lesser partner; I suspect this is indeed part of the narrative to drive a wedge. Note that Andrei Martyanov also calls this the view of Western analysts; that said, there is certainly some historical acrimony but I think it can be overcome.

man, I see how easily a rift between china and russia can form just from the comments here alone. just a label like "senior partner" can bring up all sorts of nationalistic jingo/rhetoric from both sides. if the elites of both sides feels this way, this alliance can be easily broken. easily. no wonder the western elites aren't worry about it.

and then you have israelis like sam calling china a "superficial trading counter party," russia a "natural ally." this shows that israel fears the alliance too :) all the more reason to stick with the alliance.

Russia, don't get rape again like during the 90s decade.

Or you can say the alliance between Russia and China is really worrying the Western elites, they have to resort to fake news like this article and all the subsequent comments to stop it?

why are you attacking this article or the author? he is just stating that russia is not weak. and provided facts. that is all. no need to get personal. relax. don't become the chinese version of sergey.

Andrei,
Why aren't you publishing more articles here? A lot of us like your presentions. Please don't put off more writing because of a few comments that are highly disagreeable, all good writers get that. Please consider what I've said.

Agreed. I forward your articles as much as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul’s, which is saying a lot in my book.

You should know all those with a brain belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war also belive their endless trollng of fake news to put the world in constant fear are working with cold hard facts.

You should know all those with a brain belonging to the past

I am aware of that, hence my public “coming out” in 2014 when I understood that what combined West was committing in Ukraine was a testimony to a complete blindness (not to speak of delusions of a grandeur) and ignorance–I just wanted to contribute what I could, however tiny bit, in educating people on the nature of the beast. As last three years dramatically demonstrated I was correct, including identifying total incompetence of US (not to speak of European) “elites”, establishment whatever one wants to call it. The systemic epistemic crisis is upon combined West.

If America had not opened its vast, wealthy market of 300-320 million people, China would have nothing to build, because nobody would buy the products it built.

For all its warts, America was the economic engine of the world for decades.
The enterprising, industrious America lifted all boats.
Japan, South Korea, and now China owe their prosperity to the American consumer.
Oftentimes, at the expense of the American workers and (former) American middle class.

” For all its warts, America was the economic engine of the world for decades. ”

It was not very difficult, as Roosevelt’s war destroyed almost all industrial capacity in the world.

...subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy,

And what exactly that alternative will look like?
Or, better, how would one describe and explain that alternative to, say, an average middle class person in the West?
In simple language....how the life of an average person would look like in that alternative?

What are you expecting exactly? For some other power, be it Russia or China, to make people’s lives better like the west offers? To spread freedom or democracy to the world? A green tomorrow?

Probably it would mean other countries would leave you the f@ck alone and your life is what you make it.

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn't right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia...or China....or Russia/China...or BRICS/whatever offer. That's the part I don't get. Looking at those countries I don't see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that "bad West". So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn't exist as we speak.

OK...maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well...could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: "I want you to move to Russia next year". Wouldn't you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or...."I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work". Wouldn't you want to know what exactly are you risking your job....freedom...life....for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

Or you can say the alliance between Russia and China is really worrying the Western elites, they have to resort to fake news like this article and all the subsequent comments to stop it?

why are you attacking this article or the author? he is just stating that russia is not weak. and provided facts. that is all. no need to get personal. relax. don’t become the chinese version of sergey.

Perhaps the author and the article have the same mentality like Peter Navarro, Gordon Chang and other Westerners who think they are not anti-China but providing facts about China despite their facts are fake news based on Orientalism, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

If the author wants to show Russia not weak, he can list all the achievements the Russian has made without referencing to China; if he really feels strongly that Russia is not weak, he can change all the reference of China to the USA, UK, etc. western countries.

Maybe the author could take a positive approach regarding my comments as constructive criticism in an attempt to safe guard the hard fought alliance between Russia and China from sabotage instead of attacking him and the article.

[For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections.]

Nor did Russia, nor could anyone, that's fake news. Israel controls US politics by owning politicians, not by anything to do with elections.
Bad a press as China gets, it still gets a better press than Russia. Shouldn't one conclude that China's soft power is better than Russia's?

To the elite, Russia is a bigger threat as it is in a better position to link Asia with Europe.

Also, Trump is trying to get China to take out N Korea. So they are trying to bite their tongue in regards to China for now.

Chinese has bent backwards to help Snowden by letting him stay safely in HK and Macau, meanwhile sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode, while Snowden is not giving any leaks to the Chinese, most likely he is just anti-China as rest of China Hawks in the USA.

man, I see how easily a rift between china and russia can form just from the comments here alone. just a label like "senior partner" can bring up all sorts of nationalistic jingo/rhetoric from both sides. if the elites of both sides feels this way, this alliance can be easily broken. easily. no wonder the western elites aren't worry about it.

and then you have israelis like sam calling china a "superficial trading counter party," russia a "natural ally." this shows that israel fears the alliance too :) all the more reason to stick with the alliance.

Russia, don't get rape again like during the 90s decade.

The Russians and Chinese are both hard headed people which is why the bickering :). Even amongst Russians only and Chinese only they like to bicker amongst themselves. I find this incredibly annoying to deal with but it is how both people are.

But both people’s have suffered tremendously from the empire and I think both people’s understand that so I wouldn’t read into it too much.

That's hopefully as USSR/ Russia has long history of providing and giving with later experience of having to write off lots of debt and having China previously bite USSR back after USSR basically helped to build Chinese industrial base foundation, providing military assistance and the very base for Mao to take over the rest of China in Manchuria.
I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what's being done.

I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what’s being done.

1. She coordinates with Russia internationally (Xi’s visit to Moscow prior to Putin meeting with Trump);
2. She opens her markets to Russia, e.g. Power of Siberia gas pipe-line should be ready in 2019, after that–this is mutually profitable project and it has massive, and I mean–massive, geopolitical ramifications for the combined West, especially Europe, and especially to two very nasty and Russo-phobic entities such as Poland and Ukraine;
3. There are other joint projects which are beneficial to both sides, e.g. COMAC C929;
4. Most importantly, China does cover Russia’s Far East and balances this whole triangle: Russia-China-West.

If properly managed, this could be extremely beneficial for both sides. But I already addressed it in my blog some time ago:

It looks like it worthes some risk then. I assume know how's are not being transferred along with weapons systems. I agree that 4 is the most important. USSR used to keep there almost as much troops as almost all of Russian lands forces now. If I am correct around 500-600 000.

"As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans. "
Look at the end results. It is all that matter. Defended Rodina.

Hannibal defeated Romans in 4 battles in a row and how it all ended?

Soviet Army in Berlin and Roman army in Northern Africa.

Look at the end results. It is all that matter.

As “end justifies the means”.
I guess that includes the treatment of those P.O.W.s after they got back into USSR.
I mean, who cares for an individual (multiplied by millions…) when we have a desired ending? Masses are just……expendable resources.

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn't t it? Something cheesy. We are talking outcome of the war not Medieval Jesuit scholastic it is where the phrase you used is coming from. Ignatii Loyola if I am correct. Those losses in the beginning of the war while tragic still led to eventual victory. Regarding victory over Japanese in Manchuria. That operation was masterpiece across territory larger than the whole of Western Europe and very forbidding geography. You can watch Unknown war part devoted to this peration. Worth watching.

...subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy,

And what exactly that alternative will look like?
Or, better, how would one describe and explain that alternative to, say, an average middle class person in the West?
In simple language....how the life of an average person would look like in that alternative?

{As surrender of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in 1941 to Germans.}

And as the T-34s rolling into Berlin in 1945, as hapless 15 year olds and senior citizens tried in vain to stop them, with 80% of Wehrmacht, their best and toughest, having been chopped up by the formerly surrendering Red Army.
{Could somebody say “some defense of Rodina”?}

Sure: check the picture below. See if you can figure out whose flag it is that is being raised over the ruins of Reichstag.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Reichstag_flag_original.jpg

{But, Aussies could be good enough I guess.}

So how many millions did Aussies kill and murder, like the Imperial Japanese did when they occupied most of East Asia?
What was the Aussie version of the Massacre of Nanking?
How many 100s of 1,000 of young Korean, Chinese, and Filipina girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Aussies?
What was their version of Unit 731, the Imperial Japanese 'medical' unit which conducted lethal experiments on unwilling victims captured by their troops?
Need I go on?

Need I go on?

Depends.
The idea of “righteous retribution” is interesting.
You appear keen on that for Japanese.
Now, a lot of people in Australia (and UK) are quite aware of Japanese atrocities in Pacific and there is feeling in some circles that justice wasn’t properly delivered after Japanese defeat.
My point is that, taking human nature in consideration, should China become strong enough to exact that “righteous retribution”, it would not stop there.
That’s how the world works.
But, no point into going into that because I don’t think it will ever happen.
I don’t see China capable of projecting unconventional power overseas for quite some time.
Just an opinion.

What are you expecting exactly? For some other power, be it Russia or China, to make people's lives better like the west offers? To spread freedom or democracy to the world? A green tomorrow?

Probably it would mean other countries would leave you the f@ck alone and your life is what you make it.

What are you expecting exactly?

An explanation.
Is that so hard to get?
An……….explanation.

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn’t right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia…or China….or Russia/China…or BRICS/whatever offer. That’s the part I don’t get. Looking at those countries I don’t see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that “bad West”. So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn’t exist as we speak.

OK…maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well…could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: “I want you to move to Russia next year”. Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or….”I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work”. Wouldn’t you want to know what exactly are you risking your job….freedom…life….for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

your first question is about the future where the usa or the west is longer dominant. this may or may not happen. you 2nd question is talking about now, where the usa is clearly dominant. I hope this clears it up for you :) pretty bad comparison. a deliberate decision on your part? :)

The choice is basically a unipolar world owned by the west or a mutipolar world where there are multiple countries who weild power. That is it.

You are trying to see it in terms of the current world order where the west dominates and if something takes its place it will act just like the west does and try to control your life. That ain't going to happen. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese want to force any ideology onto anyone.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

To be sure, your whole point and the questions that come out it are so very simple that they miss the real point completely.

No, "Russia, China, BRICS/whatever" are offering an alternative to their people, and by extension to like-minded people around the world. That is (presumably), not you.
That alternative says to Russians that they can live like Russians, to the Chinese, like Chinese, to Brazilians, like Brazilians, to Zimbabweans, like Zimbabweans.... and we won't tell you how to live or run your country. Whether you want parliamentary democracy, or tribal councils, or be ruled by royal decree, we won't bomb you into the stone age when you do it differently.
We will trade with you on a fair(er) basis and we will institutionalize that fair practice in international law. Nobody will be able to steal your resources, your wealth, your livelihoods under the threat of destruction of your lives and your country when you object.

On the face of it, you're right. The offer is anathema to the West. It will lose those benefits of thievery over honest toil it has enjoyed over the last couple hundred years and is now looking desperately to cement in place. In the multi-polar world, the West will have to earn its keep, and so will be forced to dig deep into itself to recover what centuries of entitlement have buried under an avalanche of decadence and nihilism.
Beyond that immediate threat, the West is being made a great offer. Namely, the opportunity to do just that, and a couple generations from now the West may well be great again.

You can stop here, because you can not see modern Russia at all. Not because you are incapable of it out of your own faculties (I am sure they are just fine), but because the state of the so called Western Russian scholarship and media, supposedly covering her, are a perfect case of a complete academic and moral bankruptcy–it is well documented and now is being finally dragged into open. So no, you can not “look” at Russia (I don’t know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American “looking glass”. The only thing you can look at is a caricature of Russia.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

Economically they can and already are offering it–denying it is a sign of complete blindness towrds outside world. Culturally and metaphysically, speaking about Russia specifically–unless you know Russian culture in a larger, civilizational sense it is useless to talk to you about anything Russia related, it will be akin to explaining partial derivatives to 4th grader. But ask yourself a question–why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British “educated” elites–this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

....can not “look” at Russia (I don’t know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American “looking glass”.

I know.

The heart of the matter.

Different perceptions of reality. Or ways of life/whatever.

One could go as far as Reformation to try to figure that out. I'll leave that for much better minds.

But ask yourself a question–why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British “educated” elites–this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

No need.
That's how the differences/opposites resolve in the real world.
Boils down to the West vs the East (and/or the rest of the World).
Conflict.
One will win and destroy/assimilate the other.
Or, we'll have MAD.

That's why I find glorifying Russia/China, for people wanting BETTER West..... just amusing.
As I said before, probably naivety mixed with "virtue signalling".

Great article Andrei. Many thanks. Echoing others above, I hope you write often.

... The only thing you can look at is a caricature of Russia.

That's because the West, and especially Americans, are living and looking at the world through a rapidly closing Overton Window. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

A good essay on this development is here: http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-overton-bubble/

"The trouble with the Overton window as a mechanism of political control, and with politicization of speech and thought in general, is that it causes significant collateral damage on the ability of your society to think clearly. If some thoughts are unthinkable and unspeakable, and the truth happens in some case to fall outside of polite consensus, then your ruling elite and their society will run into situations they simply can't handle."

That, in a nutshell, is where the West finds itself. Russia and China have found their bearings and have accumulated power to the point where they threaten the Western narrative's omnipresence. The West simply can't even admit that to itself at this point, never mind react to it constructively.

PS: Wrote this before seeing your #135. Obviously, you know what my comment is about.

However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to.

China is absolutely correct to be cautious. It is still vulnerable to US attack and still needs time to develop, and has not yet been pushed into a corner by the US. It still can gain by appeasement.

By 2013, Russia on the other hand had already been pushed too far by the US, which had made clear with its military aggression, political interference, and even attempts to subvert and overthrow the Russian government, that Russia had little to lose by standing firm and nothing to gaining from repeating the appeasement of the 1990s.

Well, Snowden could have easily been detained and placed in US custody while he was at HK…

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn't right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia...or China....or Russia/China...or BRICS/whatever offer. That's the part I don't get. Looking at those countries I don't see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that "bad West". So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn't exist as we speak.

OK...maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well...could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: "I want you to move to Russia next year". Wouldn't you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or...."I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work". Wouldn't you want to know what exactly are you risking your job....freedom...life....for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

your first question is about the future where the usa or the west is longer dominant. this may or may not happen. you 2nd question is talking about now, where the usa is clearly dominant. I hope this clears it up for you pretty bad comparison. a deliberate decision on your part?

Another point about the 1750 recession. Again, I can't recall details - read about all this about 15 years ago - but I believe the Chinese recession which unfolded was not caused by anything coming out of Europe. It was their time to implode and implode they did. They had to go through various humiliations along the way, including machine-gun-toting British Empire types with pith helmets and bushy sideburns force-feeding their people opium and suchlike (the Emperor's letter to Queen Victoria about this is a world historical gem), and finally the collapse of the Emperor and then the Communist business (AngloZionist mischief no doubt : how else could Chinese speaking Mandarin possibly get the notion that Marx was just the ticket for how to run the largest population in the world?!). So their trajectory was in descent just at the time ours was in the ascendant. And indeed, I suspect that it was BECAUSE of their collapse that the British Empire was able to step up. Partly because for several decades they had an accidental but nevertheless very real technological advantage - first the rifle, then the machine gun as the Zulus warrior nations learned the hard way - and then because they developed trade routes backed with military / naval protection in the absence of any strong resistance - because of the Chinese collapse.

Eurasia is coming back, though. It's a funny thing: if America First polity actually developed, it would allow Eurasia to develop peacefully and in so doing dismantle all its foreign bases, let banking system hegemony go and so on. If the lefties have their way with the Paris deals, UN government, IMF and so forth, the nasty empire continues and literally billions of human beings' lives will be far worse. All those indulging in vitriolic hatred and undignified scorn of the current US President, even if they are well intentioned (which I doubt - not the leaders anyway) don't stand for much except feel-good memes.

These are interesting times. But China-Russia is solid. It is YUGE! And it would be better for everyone in the world if we all got on board with it!

You also should investigate further a few things about this “cycle” phenomena. You will then have a more complete picture.

Pacifism brought about by certain dictums in the art of war book because of Confucianism/Rujia philosophy.

Hubris leading to disdain for anything outside of China and corruption as seen in footbinding of women.

The role of the “king makers”, certain Daoist circles that remain largely hidden to this day. A remark attributed to the founder of the Quanzhen school of Daoism which regards to the inanity of the Song Emperors, “a solution has been been decided, it’s name is Genghis Khan”.

If you go back and see the borders achieved with the Han Chinese dynasties like the Tang, there was progress to achieve lebensraum but it took the Mongols to establish the present size of what China is today, and the Ming after the Yuan failed to restore it.

So the Manchurians were “brought in” and they as the Qing dynasty succeeded in restoring the borders of the Yuan where the Ming failed but succumb themselves to the accumulated crap of China’s long history as they assimilated themselves into Chinese culture.

Chinese hubris and corruption was burned away with another solution that had the name of the British East India Company. The CCP “dynasty” is the current “capstone” of that much needed reset.

Just contrast the other oldie that never really got reset, India, with China…

Another thing to look into… The Hakka Chinese who as a rule never adopted footbinding and they figured very prominently in politics nowadays…

I wonder, what China actually gives to Russia at the moment ally wise that justifies what’s being done.

1. She coordinates with Russia internationally (Xi's visit to Moscow prior to Putin meeting with Trump);
2. She opens her markets to Russia, e.g. Power of Siberia gas pipe-line should be ready in 2019, after that--this is mutually profitable project and it has massive, and I mean--massive, geopolitical ramifications for the combined West, especially Europe, and especially to two very nasty and Russo-phobic entities such as Poland and Ukraine;
3. There are other joint projects which are beneficial to both sides, e.g. COMAC C929;
4. Most importantly, China does cover Russia's Far East and balances this whole triangle: Russia-China-West.

If properly managed, this could be extremely beneficial for both sides. But I already addressed it in my blog some time ago:

It looks like it worthes some risk then. I assume know how’s are not being transferred along with weapons systems. I agree that 4 is the most important. USSR used to keep there almost as much troops as almost all of Russian lands forces now. If I am correct around 500-600 000.

why are you attacking this article or the author? he is just stating that russia is not weak. and provided facts. that is all. no need to get personal. relax. don't become the chinese version of sergey.

Perhaps the author and the article have the same mentality like Peter Navarro, Gordon Chang and other Westerners who think they are not anti-China but providing facts about China despite their facts are fake news based on Orientalism, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

If the author wants to show Russia not weak, he can list all the achievements the Russian has made without referencing to China; if he really feels strongly that Russia is not weak, he can change all the reference of China to the USA, UK, etc. western countries.

Maybe the author could take a positive approach regarding my comments as constructive criticism in an attempt to safe guard the hard fought alliance between Russia and China from sabotage instead of attacking him and the article.

your first question is about the future where the usa or the west is longer dominant. this may or may not happen. you 2nd question is talking about now, where the usa is clearly dominant. I hope this clears it up for you :) pretty bad comparison. a deliberate decision on your part? :)

Bottom line:
Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer a feasible alternative.
They are not a solution to the problems of the West.
They are an additional problem.
Simple as that.

Don't be so uneducated, Europe/West has been worse, many times worse, than Russia and China before; history repeats itself all the time, the probability of the West returning to its miserable and superstitious past is high, for example they are already engaged with the Muslim in bloodletting cult wars that has been going on thousands of years, and they are also in mind controlling business like their bigotry forebears during the Catholic inquisition, but this time it is in the name of democracy.

As "end justifies the means".
I guess that includes the treatment of those P.O.W.s after they got back into USSR.
I mean, who cares for an individual (multiplied by millions...) when we have a desired ending? Masses are just......expendable resources.

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn’t t it? Something cheesy. We are talking outcome of the war not Medieval Jesuit scholastic it is where the phrase you used is coming from. Ignatii Loyola if I am correct. Those losses in the beginning of the war while tragic still led to eventual victory. Regarding victory over Japanese in Manchuria. That operation was masterpiece across territory larger than the whole of Western Europe and very forbidding geography. You can watch Unknown war part devoted to this peration. Worth watching.

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn’t t it? Something cheesy

Not at all.A lot of those "fighting with Germans" were fighting for their own version of their country. Not Soviet oriented, not Communist etc.If it comes to fight tomorrow again, they'll, again, most likely, be "fighting with Americans/British/Germans....NATO" against Russia, for their own version of their own country.Peoples of small countries, in Europe, most of the time can only align themselves with big players and do as best as they can.But, I'll suggest not making a mistake of thinking they fight for "Americans/Russians/Germans/whatever". They fight for their own people, for their own version of their own country.The first loyalty is always to their own people, their own country.And, as for Baltics and similar countries on the fault line between East and West, it goes deep into history.From the Schism of 1054, through Reformation to nation buildings in 19th century. Trying to understand all that fast and easy doesn't work.

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn't right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia...or China....or Russia/China...or BRICS/whatever offer. That's the part I don't get. Looking at those countries I don't see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that "bad West". So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn't exist as we speak.

OK...maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well...could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: "I want you to move to Russia next year". Wouldn't you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or...."I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work". Wouldn't you want to know what exactly are you risking your job....freedom...life....for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

Looking at those countries I don’t see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there.

Not all countries are perfect for rootless cosmopolitans, agreed. On the other hand, it is possible that a nation’s value is not entirely measured by its agreeability to rootless cosmopolitans.

You also should investigate further a few things about this "cycle" phenomena. You will then have a more complete picture.

Pacifism brought about by certain dictums in the art of war book because of Confucianism/Rujia philosophy.

Hubris leading to disdain for anything outside of China and corruption as seen in footbinding of women.

The role of the "king makers", certain Daoist circles that remain largely hidden to this day. A remark attributed to the founder of the Quanzhen school of Daoism which regards to the inanity of the Song Emperors, "a solution has been been decided, it's name is Genghis Khan".

If you go back and see the borders achieved with the Han Chinese dynasties like the Tang, there was progress to achieve lebensraum but it took the Mongols to establish the present size of what China is today, and the Ming after the Yuan failed to restore it.

So the Manchurians were "brought in" and they as the Qing dynasty succeeded in restoring the borders of the Yuan where the Ming failed but succumb themselves to the accumulated crap of China's long history as they assimilated themselves into Chinese culture.

Chinese hubris and corruption was burned away with another solution that had the name of the British East India Company. The CCP "dynasty" is the current "capstone" of that much needed reset.

Just contrast the other oldie that never really got reset, India, with China...

Another thing to look into... The Hakka Chinese who as a rule never adopted footbinding and they figured very prominently in politics nowadays...

This is a new take on the notion of the Illuminati that’s pretty amusing.

You do realise you are using logic to evaluate historical facts. A lot of it is a matter of record but not very accessible especially to someone in the US Chinese or not or little known but accessible but few would bother.

You can stop here, because you can not see modern Russia at all. Not because you are incapable of it out of your own faculties (I am sure they are just fine), but because the state of the so called Western Russian scholarship and media, supposedly covering her, are a perfect case of a complete academic and moral bankruptcy--it is well documented and now is being finally dragged into open. So no, you can not "look" at Russia (I don't know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American "looking glass". The only thing you can look at is a caricature of Russia.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

Economically they can and already are offering it--denying it is a sign of complete blindness towrds outside world. Culturally and metaphysically, speaking about Russia specifically--unless you know Russian culture in a larger, civilizational sense it is useless to talk to you about anything Russia related, it will be akin to explaining partial derivatives to 4th grader. But ask yourself a question--why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British "educated" elites--this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

….can not “look” at Russia (I don’t know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American “looking glass”.

I know.

The heart of the matter.

Different perceptions of reality. Or ways of life/whatever.

One could go as far as Reformation to try to figure that out. I’ll leave that for much better minds.

But ask yourself a question–why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British “educated” elites–this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

No need.
That’s how the differences/opposites resolve in the real world.
Boils down to the West vs the East (and/or the rest of the World).
Conflict.
One will win and destroy/assimilate the other.
Or, we’ll have MAD.

That’s why I find glorifying Russia/China, for people wanting BETTER West….. just amusing.
As I said before, probably naivety mixed with “virtue signalling”.

Knowledge (as opposed to information) is a fullness of facts fitted into the rigid framework of causality--effect never precedes the cause. Not in this universe. Truth is knowable and exists without any "different perceptions of reality", because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore and is in the process of what Robert Reilly defined as a de-Hellenization, which is another term for de-Westernization. We all in the West are at the point of no return, as last 3-4 years so clearly demonstrated. One can live in parallel universe and find excuses for only so long--then reality reappears and bites one's ass, in the best case scenario, in the worst--it bites off a head and the deal is done. I see, for now, latter, rather than former, approaching and I have a freaking professional sixth sense for it--I lived through it before. I really hope that I am wrong. But sure, whatever.

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn't right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia...or China....or Russia/China...or BRICS/whatever offer. That's the part I don't get. Looking at those countries I don't see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that "bad West". So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn't exist as we speak.

OK...maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well...could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: "I want you to move to Russia next year". Wouldn't you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or...."I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work". Wouldn't you want to know what exactly are you risking your job....freedom...life....for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

The choice is basically a unipolar world owned by the west or a mutipolar world where there are multiple countries who weild power. That is it.

You are trying to see it in terms of the current world order where the west dominates and if something takes its place it will act just like the west does and try to control your life. That ain’t going to happen. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese want to force any ideology onto anyone.

Everyone and his/her dog is critical of the current West. I get it.
The same characters can write tomes of what exactly isn't right with the West. I get it too.

Then, some of those characters keep talking about the alternative that Russia...or China....or Russia/China...or BRICS/whatever offer. That's the part I don't get. Looking at those countries I don't see the (better) alternative. If I saw it I would probably go and live there. My impression is that a lot of people from those countries actually immigrate into that "bad West". So, either those people are idiots, or that alternative doesn't exist as we speak.

OK...maybe that alternative could exist in the future.
Well...could somebody tell us what exactly that future would look like?

Say, somebody tells you: "I want you to move to Russia next year". Wouldn't you want to know exactly what are you getting into before you move?
Or...."I want you to confront the power of USA to make that alternative work". Wouldn't you want to know what exactly are you risking your job....freedom...life....for, before going for it?

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

To be sure, your whole point and the questions that come out it are so very simple that they miss the real point completely.

No, “Russia, China, BRICS/whatever” are offering an alternative to their people, and by extension to like-minded people around the world. That is (presumably), not you.
That alternative says to Russians that they can live like Russians, to the Chinese, like Chinese, to Brazilians, like Brazilians, to Zimbabweans, like Zimbabweans…. and we won’t tell you how to live or run your country. Whether you want parliamentary democracy, or tribal councils, or be ruled by royal decree, we won’t bomb you into the stone age when you do it differently.
We will trade with you on a fair(er) basis and we will institutionalize that fair practice in international law. Nobody will be able to steal your resources, your wealth, your livelihoods under the threat of destruction of your lives and your country when you object.

On the face of it, you’re right. The offer is anathema to the West. It will lose those benefits of thievery over honest toil it has enjoyed over the last couple hundred years and is now looking desperately to cement in place. In the multi-polar world, the West will have to earn its keep, and so will be forced to dig deep into itself to recover what centuries of entitlement have buried under an avalanche of decadence and nihilism.
Beyond that immediate threat, the West is being made a great offer. Namely, the opportunity to do just that, and a couple generations from now the West may well be great again.

Perhaps the author and the article have the same mentality like Peter Navarro, Gordon Chang and other Westerners who think they are not anti-China but providing facts about China despite their facts are fake news based on Orientalism, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

If the author wants to show Russia not weak, he can list all the achievements the Russian has made without referencing to China; if he really feels strongly that Russia is not weak, he can change all the reference of China to the USA, UK, etc. western countries.

Maybe the author could take a positive approach regarding my comments as constructive criticism in an attempt to safe guard the hard fought alliance between Russia and China from sabotage instead of attacking him and the article.

Gordan Chang is a hero of China, greatest member of SFY(Strategic Foo You) agency.

Then, I don't know how to approach a lightning annihilation of 1 million strong Kwantung Army in 1945. Did Russians approach that with a feeling of... inferiority? I am always extremely cautious with historical "parallels" and examples--unless huge, and knowledgeable allowances are made--an extremely difficult task, 90% of history's "lessons", "parallels" and "analogies" is rubbish. Akin to applying lessons of "operations" at the Battle Of Lepanto to a Salvo Model of missile exchange between two advance fleets with full EW and ECCM capabilities and advanced Combat Informational Control Systems in 2017. Surprisingly, there are people who do believe that there are some lessons in operations at Lepanto in 1571 that can be applied.

Then, I don’t know how to approach a lightning annihilation of 1 million strong Kwantung Army in 1945. Did Russians approach that with a feeling of… inferiority?

No, you should not approach it that way. That is too facile and a surprisingly weak rebuttal. The point obviously was not that there is a causual connection between racist attitudes and military outcomes (up or down).

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn't t it? Something cheesy. We are talking outcome of the war not Medieval Jesuit scholastic it is where the phrase you used is coming from. Ignatii Loyola if I am correct. Those losses in the beginning of the war while tragic still led to eventual victory. Regarding victory over Japanese in Manchuria. That operation was masterpiece across territory larger than the whole of Western Europe and very forbidding geography. You can watch Unknown war part devoted to this peration. Worth watching.

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn’t t it? Something cheesy

Not at all.
A lot of those “fighting with Germans” were fighting for their own version of their country. Not Soviet oriented, not Communist etc.
If it comes to fight tomorrow again, they’ll, again, most likely, be “fighting with Americans/British/Germans….NATO” against Russia, for their own version of their own country.
Peoples of small countries, in Europe, most of the time can only align themselves with big players and do as best as they can.
But, I’ll suggest not making a mistake of thinking they fight for “Americans/Russians/Germans/whatever”. They fight for their own people, for their own version of their own country.
The first loyalty is always to their own people, their own country.
And, as for Baltics and similar countries on the fault line between East and West, it goes deep into history.
From the Schism of 1054, through Reformation to nation buildings in 19th century.
Trying to understand all that fast and easy doesn’t work.

Bottom line:
Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer a feasible alternative.
They are not a solution to the problems of the West.
They are an additional problem.
Simple as that.

Don’t be so uneducated, Europe/West has been worse, many times worse, than Russia and China before; history repeats itself all the time, the probability of the West returning to its miserable and superstitious past is high, for example they are already engaged with the Muslim in bloodletting cult wars that has been going on thousands of years, and they are also in mind controlling business like their bigotry forebears during the Catholic inquisition, but this time it is in the name of democracy.

....can not “look” at Russia (I don’t know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American “looking glass”.

I know.

The heart of the matter.

Different perceptions of reality. Or ways of life/whatever.

One could go as far as Reformation to try to figure that out. I'll leave that for much better minds.

But ask yourself a question–why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British “educated” elites–this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

No need.
That's how the differences/opposites resolve in the real world.
Boils down to the West vs the East (and/or the rest of the World).
Conflict.
One will win and destroy/assimilate the other.
Or, we'll have MAD.

That's why I find glorifying Russia/China, for people wanting BETTER West..... just amusing.
As I said before, probably naivety mixed with "virtue signalling".

The rest (us/them) make sense, of course.

Different perceptions of reality. Or ways of life/whatever.

Knowledge (as opposed to information) is a fullness of facts fitted into the rigid framework of causality–effect never precedes the cause. Not in this universe. Truth is knowable and exists without any “different perceptions of reality”, because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore and is in the process of what Robert Reilly defined as a de-Hellenization, which is another term for de-Westernization. We all in the West are at the point of no return, as last 3-4 years so clearly demonstrated. One can live in parallel universe and find excuses for only so long–then reality reappears and bites one’s ass, in the best case scenario, in the worst–it bites off a head and the deal is done. I see, for now, latter, rather than former, approaching and I have a freaking professional sixth sense for it–I lived through it before. I really hope that I am wrong. But sure, whatever.

Truth is knowable and exists without any “different perceptions of reality”, because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore

Yeah.
But the East does.
Russia and China in particular.

And, that Truth works so well for their lower 80 %.
That's why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

I'll try to clarify a simple point "great thinkers" just don't get.

For an average man, what matters in life aren't great ideas....metaphysics, big words and similar BS.
They are..."uneducated"...never reading, let alone studying Plato, Hegel and the company.
And they don't care for it.
They want ...simple things....

And the way of life in the West gives them those "little things" better than the way of life in the East.
When I see immigration from the West into Russia/China I'll change my judgment of that.

And, that's what "great minds" don't get, or, more often, do not want to get. Too...primitive for them.

A "little man" is more respected in the West than he/she is in the East.
And the "little man" knows it.
And that's how the "little man" chooses who he is with...or against.

Firstly, let me echo others in thanks for your articles here at Unz, and the requests to publish more of them.

Your interlocutor in this conversation, peterAUS, is, I believe, like you an emigre from the FSU/RF. He also, like you, served in the SU/RF armed forces. My understanding is that he saw combat, presumably in the first Chechen War, which would certainly explain many of his views. Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

Frankly, to those of us who went in the opposite direction, from the West to Russia, the idea that nobody wants to move from the West to Russia/China, and that they don't offer viable alternatives, sounds comically absurd and outdated. This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best. That may have been true a few decades ago, but not anymore. And, as others on this thread have pointed, just having an alternative is to be handily greeted. It doesn't need to be better, just different.

This is a new take on the notion of the Illuminati that's pretty amusing.

You do realise you are using logic to evaluate historical facts. A lot of it is a matter of record but not very accessible especially to someone in the US Chinese or not or little known but accessible but few would bother.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

To be sure, your whole point and the questions that come out it are so very simple that they miss the real point completely.

No, "Russia, China, BRICS/whatever" are offering an alternative to their people, and by extension to like-minded people around the world. That is (presumably), not you.
That alternative says to Russians that they can live like Russians, to the Chinese, like Chinese, to Brazilians, like Brazilians, to Zimbabweans, like Zimbabweans.... and we won't tell you how to live or run your country. Whether you want parliamentary democracy, or tribal councils, or be ruled by royal decree, we won't bomb you into the stone age when you do it differently.
We will trade with you on a fair(er) basis and we will institutionalize that fair practice in international law. Nobody will be able to steal your resources, your wealth, your livelihoods under the threat of destruction of your lives and your country when you object.

On the face of it, you're right. The offer is anathema to the West. It will lose those benefits of thievery over honest toil it has enjoyed over the last couple hundred years and is now looking desperately to cement in place. In the multi-polar world, the West will have to earn its keep, and so will be forced to dig deep into itself to recover what centuries of entitlement have buried under an avalanche of decadence and nihilism.
Beyond that immediate threat, the West is being made a great offer. Namely, the opportunity to do just that, and a couple generations from now the West may well be great again.

Whether you want parliamentary democracy, or tribal councils, or be ruled by royal decree, we won’t bomb you into the stone age when you do it differently

Noble.

So, the regime in Moscow shouldn’t have waged the Second Chechen War?
Or, the regime in Beijing should let the Tibet go?
Etc.

Gets better.
Hutu/Tutsi scenario. No intervention?

It will lose those benefits of thievery over honest toil it has enjoyed over the last couple hundred years and is now looking desperately to cement in place.

And should the West lose and retract Russia and/or China will fill that space?
Or they won’t because of inherent morality of those regimes or societies in general?

So, why would a Westerner want to WILLINGLY give his/her…privilege….so a Russian/Chinese/whatever can get them? This amuses me.

So, the regime in Moscow shouldn’t have waged the Second Chechen War?
Or, the regime in Beijing should let the Tibet go?

I'm glad you brought up those points, as I had them in mind when I wrote.

Both of those, in case you didn't notice, occurred inside national borders. Both resulted from internal dissatisfactions being fuelled and empowered by Western financed, trained, and advised troublemakers. The end goal of those endeavours is the destabilization and ultimate control of the central state structure. The same with the Uighurs of Xinjiang. That's politely called meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

The multi-polar world being proposed says it's not OK to do that.

As for Tutsis and Hutus, the multi-polar alternative says there are institutions and structures in place to deal with that kind of issue. The West routinely blocks them when a humanitarian catastrophe suits their purposes, especially, if it has fomented the catastrophe in the first place.
You can read about the Rwandan genocide here: https://www.scribd.com/document/34904497/Western-Involvement-in-the-Rwandan-Genocide

So, why would a Westerner want to WILLINGLY give his/her…privilege….so a Russian/Chinese/whatever can get them?

Too late mate. Those privileges are going away whatever you do.
And guess what... the Russian/Chinese know those privileges for the trap they ultimately are, and will avoid them by institutionalizing rules to prevent anyone from gaining them again. In the same way the Chinese Communist Party said "Never Again!" after Mao and put in place state and party structures to prevent one man from ever completely dominating the political power of China, Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

That will last as long as it lasts, of course, but it's the model going forward unless the West goes ballistic in defence of their "privileges".

You can stop here, because you can not see modern Russia at all. Not because you are incapable of it out of your own faculties (I am sure they are just fine), but because the state of the so called Western Russian scholarship and media, supposedly covering her, are a perfect case of a complete academic and moral bankruptcy--it is well documented and now is being finally dragged into open. So no, you can not "look" at Russia (I don't know about other countries you mention) if you do it by means of Anglo-American "looking glass". The only thing you can look at is a caricature of Russia.

My point is simple: Russia, China, BRICS/whatever do not offer that alternative.

Economically they can and already are offering it--denying it is a sign of complete blindness towrds outside world. Culturally and metaphysically, speaking about Russia specifically--unless you know Russian culture in a larger, civilizational sense it is useless to talk to you about anything Russia related, it will be akin to explaining partial derivatives to 4th grader. But ask yourself a question--why such an obsessive (and aggressive) Russo-phobia throughout 20th-21st centuries, especially among British "educated" elites--this will answer your question about cultural alternative Russia offers today.

Great article Andrei. Many thanks. Echoing others above, I hope you write often.

“The trouble with the Overton window as a mechanism of political control, and with politicization of speech and thought in general, is that it causes significant collateral damage on the ability of your society to think clearly. If some thoughts are unthinkable and unspeakable, and the truth happens in some case to fall outside of polite consensus, then your ruling elite and their society will run into situations they simply can’t handle.”

That, in a nutshell, is where the West finds itself. Russia and China have found their bearings and have accumulated power to the point where they threaten the Western narrative’s omnipresence. The West simply can’t even admit that to itself at this point, never mind react to it constructively.

PS: Wrote this before seeing your #135. Obviously, you know what my comment is about.

Knowledge (as opposed to information) is a fullness of facts fitted into the rigid framework of causality--effect never precedes the cause. Not in this universe. Truth is knowable and exists without any "different perceptions of reality", because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore and is in the process of what Robert Reilly defined as a de-Hellenization, which is another term for de-Westernization. We all in the West are at the point of no return, as last 3-4 years so clearly demonstrated. One can live in parallel universe and find excuses for only so long--then reality reappears and bites one's ass, in the best case scenario, in the worst--it bites off a head and the deal is done. I see, for now, latter, rather than former, approaching and I have a freaking professional sixth sense for it--I lived through it before. I really hope that I am wrong. But sure, whatever.

Truth is knowable and exists without any “different perceptions of reality”, because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore

Yeah.
But the East does.
Russia and China in particular.

And, that Truth works so well for their lower 80 %.
That’s why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

I’ll try to clarify a simple point “great thinkers” just don’t get.

For an average man, what matters in life aren’t great ideas….metaphysics, big words and similar BS.
They are…”uneducated”…never reading, let alone studying Plato, Hegel and the company.
And they don’t care for it.
They want …simple things….

And the way of life in the West gives them those “little things” better than the way of life in the East.
When I see immigration from the West into Russia/China I’ll change my judgment of that.

And, that’s what “great minds” don’t get, or, more often, do not want to get. Too…primitive for them.

A “little man” is more respected in the West than he/she is in the East.
And the “little man” knows it.
And that’s how the “little man” chooses who he is with…or against.

That’s why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

Many people immigrate in many places, yet, somehow, I don't see Russia's and China's de-population due to immigration. Moreover, should you have bothered to acquaint yourself with immigration statistics (from UN to IMF, as an example) you would know that Russia is #2 destination for immigration in the world, right behind the United States. But other this is, your argument suffers from one major flaw--you look at the still photograph, while world is a moving picture. It is also clear that you are completely detached from modern Russia realities (yes, with all Russia's corruption and other social diseases nobody denies) and prefer not to look beyond some rigid ideological structures. and per your line of "US/UK/Australia"--three very different entities which can not be compared in any way. As per corruption in the West--refresh you memory, say, regarding last election cycle in US.

Whether you want parliamentary democracy, or tribal councils, or be ruled by royal decree, we won’t bomb you into the stone age when you do it differently

Noble.

So, the regime in Moscow shouldn't have waged the Second Chechen War?
Or, the regime in Beijing should let the Tibet go?
Etc.

Gets better.
Hutu/Tutsi scenario. No intervention?

It will lose those benefits of thievery over honest toil it has enjoyed over the last couple hundred years and is now looking desperately to cement in place.

And should the West lose and retract Russia and/or China will fill that space?
Or they won't because of inherent morality of those regimes or societies in general?

So, why would a Westerner want to WILLINGLY give his/her...privilege....so a Russian/Chinese/whatever can get them? This amuses me.

So, the regime in Moscow shouldn’t have waged the Second Chechen War?
Or, the regime in Beijing should let the Tibet go?

I’m glad you brought up those points, as I had them in mind when I wrote.

Both of those, in case you didn’t notice, occurred inside national borders. Both resulted from internal dissatisfactions being fuelled and empowered by Western financed, trained, and advised troublemakers. The end goal of those endeavours is the destabilization and ultimate control of the central state structure. The same with the Uighurs of Xinjiang. That’s politely called meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

The multi-polar world being proposed says it’s not OK to do that.

As for Tutsis and Hutus, the multi-polar alternative says there are institutions and structures in place to deal with that kind of issue. The West routinely blocks them when a humanitarian catastrophe suits their purposes, especially, if it has fomented the catastrophe in the first place.
You can read about the Rwandan genocide here: https://www.scribd.com/document/34904497/Western-Involvement-in-the-Rwandan-Genocide

So, why would a Westerner want to WILLINGLY give his/her…privilege….so a Russian/Chinese/whatever can get them?

Too late mate. Those privileges are going away whatever you do.
And guess what… the Russian/Chinese know those privileges for the trap they ultimately are, and will avoid them by institutionalizing rules to prevent anyone from gaining them again. In the same way the Chinese Communist Party said “Never Again!” after Mao and put in place state and party structures to prevent one man from ever completely dominating the political power of China, Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

That will last as long as it lasts, of course, but it’s the model going forward unless the West goes ballistic in defence of their “privileges”.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

This dynamic isn't particularly unique to China and is common not only developing countries (e.g. compare Goa to Bihar) but even the advanced countries. Massachusetts has more than twice the per capita income of Mississippi, and a number of American territories are considerably poorer than Mississippi.

China's high level of sophistication relative to its income seems to be the result of its development strategy which prioritizes the acquisition and mastery of foreign technology. In this respect it is following in the footsteps of South Korea and Japan, and before them the United States and Germany to a lesser extent.

China is now moving past technology theft and into indigenous innovation. Its overseas investment is shifting from commodities into high technology, which the USA and the EU are trying to block.

Too late. The appropriate strategy would've been to apply COCOM controls against China in 1991 and high tariff barriers.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

It seems that this would depend primarily on Chinese willpower. There is no doubt that the USN could interdict most of China's seaborne trade, and there is no way overland deliveries of raw materials (above all oil and coal) could substitute. However, given China's own substantial domestic product and imports from Russia, the country could keep running under severe rationing.

I think we're long past the time in which US air and seapower, even if reinforced by allied forces, can successfully do much damage to mainland China itself (other than, of course, atomic ballistic missiles).

But let's say we defeat China in a limited war through blockade, financial warfare, and perhaps precision strikes on the mainland.

Then what?

China will recover rapidly and massively increase its armaments expenditures.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

‘It would be a Pyrrhic victory. The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.’

The Jps dont need uncle sham protection from China cuz…

China had no intention of invading the Diaoyu, never mind the Jp mainland.
Jp has been the aggressor towards China since the Ming dynasty, period.

In the 70′s China proposed to shelve the Diaoyu issue so that Sino/Jp could reconcile and move on. A kind of gentlemen agreement was reached and Beijing/Tokyo enjoyed a brief honeymoon period.
At its high point, two plane loads of 600 Jp VIP of politicos, bussisness men, artists etc flew to Beijing to party with their Chinese couterparts.

Somebody in Washington were definitely not amused.
A Beijing/Seoul./Tokyo axis would spell the end of murkkan hegemony in Asia, a scenario that surely made uncle sham sit up in the middle of the night in cold sweat.
How’s a man gonna make a living if Asians play nice to each other ?

Washington soon orchestrated a soft coup to depose the Beijing friendly Jp PM, Abe’s ultra right party was restored to rule.
From then on Tokyo executed a series of provocative moves to rekindle the Diaoyu conflict and Sino/Jp relation nose dive.

uncle sham was never in Asia to ‘defend’ JP or anybody else.
The professional arsonist role in Asia and elsewhere has always been anagent provocateur.

Start a fire, sound the alarm and come back to the crime scene in firefighter’s garb.
Same M.O. in ECS, SCS, Korean Peninsula….and beyond.
thats how uncle sham make a living.

p.s.
1] Contrary to the Washington’s fairy tale that oh so defenceless Jps are quaking in their boots , Jp is of course capable of defending themselves as pointed out but thats beside the point.

2] Diaoyu isnt their island,
its claimed by China with good reason,
concurred by several Jp historians.

So, the regime in Moscow shouldn’t have waged the Second Chechen War?
Or, the regime in Beijing should let the Tibet go?

I'm glad you brought up those points, as I had them in mind when I wrote.

Both of those, in case you didn't notice, occurred inside national borders. Both resulted from internal dissatisfactions being fuelled and empowered by Western financed, trained, and advised troublemakers. The end goal of those endeavours is the destabilization and ultimate control of the central state structure. The same with the Uighurs of Xinjiang. That's politely called meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

The multi-polar world being proposed says it's not OK to do that.

As for Tutsis and Hutus, the multi-polar alternative says there are institutions and structures in place to deal with that kind of issue. The West routinely blocks them when a humanitarian catastrophe suits their purposes, especially, if it has fomented the catastrophe in the first place.
You can read about the Rwandan genocide here: https://www.scribd.com/document/34904497/Western-Involvement-in-the-Rwandan-Genocide

So, why would a Westerner want to WILLINGLY give his/her…privilege….so a Russian/Chinese/whatever can get them?

Too late mate. Those privileges are going away whatever you do.
And guess what... the Russian/Chinese know those privileges for the trap they ultimately are, and will avoid them by institutionalizing rules to prevent anyone from gaining them again. In the same way the Chinese Communist Party said "Never Again!" after Mao and put in place state and party structures to prevent one man from ever completely dominating the political power of China, Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

That will last as long as it lasts, of course, but it's the model going forward unless the West goes ballistic in defence of their "privileges".

Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

I see.
The regimes with rampant corruption, hence disregard for the rule of law, will be the guardians of an international law.
O.K.

The US is truly the embodiment of respect for international laws and the sovereignty of countries.

"We came, we saw, he died," [Hillary] joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews

SmoothieX12 notes, your perspective is limited by the window that you've put yourself in. In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator. That's great: but Rome also was popular when it offered free bread and circuses akin to the mass intellectual narcotics that the West provides in the form of media.

America, too, once pretended that promoting democracy would allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they saw fit. Eventually, it became clear that America would keep on promoting democracy (*cough*) in any country whose peoples didn't govern themselves as America saw fit (and keep on doing it, more than once if necessary, until they did).

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We'll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn't be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

As for corruption, yes, if a certain country legalizes bribery and calls it "lobbying", then there is no illegal corruption going on. That is a fact. The U.S. should take an idea from Lord Vetinari and legalize murder-for-hire as well, then their violent crime rates will go way down.

Those who fought with Germans against own country got harsh treatment and yet, look how many survived to march in Nazi marches in Baltic states. Something must be wrong here, isn't t it? Something cheesy. We are talking outcome of the war not Medieval Jesuit scholastic it is where the phrase you used is coming from. Ignatii Loyola if I am correct. Those losses in the beginning of the war while tragic still led to eventual victory. Regarding victory over Japanese in Manchuria. That operation was masterpiece across territory larger than the whole of Western Europe and very forbidding geography. You can watch Unknown war part devoted to this peration. Worth watching.

Time-traveling medieval Jesuits would be fun to see. I’d pay to watch a movie about them.

… sending a special force to fold the CIA assassination team to kill him in Macau; about 6 CIA assassination member which included a senior intelligence member in the HK USA general consulate were killed in that episode…

That's very interesting. I'd never heard a whiff of such a shocking story in my MSM newspapers, and when I casually Googled it, I got a piece in the respectable Foreign Policy publication, ridiculing and debunking it as a ridiculous rumor/hoax that somehow got in various Chinese newspapers.

A few years ago, I would have accepted that and discounted the story, but our MSM has proven itself to be so dishonest and incompetent, I just can't be sure.

If others spend some time investigating the matter, I'll be curious whether they think it somewhat plausible that it might have actually happened.

I just read this interesting article about CIA and China spies. Somewhat related.

Knowledge (as opposed to information) is a fullness of facts fitted into the rigid framework of causality--effect never precedes the cause. Not in this universe. Truth is knowable and exists without any "different perceptions of reality", because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore and is in the process of what Robert Reilly defined as a de-Hellenization, which is another term for de-Westernization. We all in the West are at the point of no return, as last 3-4 years so clearly demonstrated. One can live in parallel universe and find excuses for only so long--then reality reappears and bites one's ass, in the best case scenario, in the worst--it bites off a head and the deal is done. I see, for now, latter, rather than former, approaching and I have a freaking professional sixth sense for it--I lived through it before. I really hope that I am wrong. But sure, whatever.

Firstly, let me echo others in thanks for your articles here at Unz, and the requests to publish more of them.

Your interlocutor in this conversation, peterAUS, is, I believe, like you an emigre from the FSU/RF. He also, like you, served in the SU/RF armed forces. My understanding is that he saw combat, presumably in the first Chechen War, which would certainly explain many of his views. Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

Frankly, to those of us who went in the opposite direction, from the West to Russia, the idea that nobody wants to move from the West to Russia/China, and that they don’t offer viable alternatives, sounds comically absurd and outdated. This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best. That may have been true a few decades ago, but not anymore. And, as others on this thread have pointed, just having an alternative is to be handily greeted. It doesn’t need to be better, just different.

This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best.

This is precisely the point I am making now, including through my writing. It is important to make, especially after the fever pitch Russo-phobia, the likes even Cold War didn't see, was unleashed in the West. Strangely, this hatefest is also West's undoing, not least through exposing of the level of hubris, incompetence, corruption and ignorance of the so called "elites" and academe which serves them. Not to mention that it is dangerous in a military sense.

Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

I've known quite a few people like that, which is amusing in a way, because in their effort to reject their past including any cultural values of their past in order to position themselves as being better for having adopted to a presumably higher functioning and superior civilization especially to their former countrymen, they come off as particularly desperate and reeking of self-hate.

Truth is knowable and exists without any “different perceptions of reality”, because Truth is definable. West does not live like this anymore

Yeah.
But the East does.
Russia and China in particular.

And, that Truth works so well for their lower 80 %.
That's why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

I'll try to clarify a simple point "great thinkers" just don't get.

For an average man, what matters in life aren't great ideas....metaphysics, big words and similar BS.
They are..."uneducated"...never reading, let alone studying Plato, Hegel and the company.
And they don't care for it.
They want ...simple things....

And the way of life in the West gives them those "little things" better than the way of life in the East.
When I see immigration from the West into Russia/China I'll change my judgment of that.

And, that's what "great minds" don't get, or, more often, do not want to get. Too...primitive for them.

A "little man" is more respected in the West than he/she is in the East.
And the "little man" knows it.
And that's how the "little man" chooses who he is with...or against.

That’s why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

Many people immigrate in many places, yet, somehow, I don’t see Russia’s and China’s de-population due to immigration. Moreover, should you have bothered to acquaint yourself with immigration statistics (from UN to IMF, as an example) you would know that Russia is #2 destination for immigration in the world, right behind the United States. But other this is, your argument suffers from one major flaw–you look at the still photograph, while world is a moving picture. It is also clear that you are completely detached from modern Russia realities (yes, with all Russia’s corruption and other social diseases nobody denies) and prefer not to look beyond some rigid ideological structures. and per your line of “US/UK/Australia”–three very different entities which can not be compared in any way. As per corruption in the West–refresh you memory, say, regarding last election cycle in US.

“US/UK/Australia”–three very different entities which can not be compared in any way

You are serious?
"Anglos"...................
Allies in all the wars..........
Five Eyes.

....Russia’s corruption and other social diseases nobody denies

That.
Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of "authority".
Including health practitioners...
Plain extortion in all but name....bribes.......even threats and collusion with organized crime.
Which all affects daily life of an average Russian.
Being stopped by a traffic cop. Waiting/getting medical service. Getting any sort of permit from "authorities".
Etc....

I just don't think you'll find THAT level and type of corruption in US (and, yes, UK and Australia).

Firstly, let me echo others in thanks for your articles here at Unz, and the requests to publish more of them.

Your interlocutor in this conversation, peterAUS, is, I believe, like you an emigre from the FSU/RF. He also, like you, served in the SU/RF armed forces. My understanding is that he saw combat, presumably in the first Chechen War, which would certainly explain many of his views. Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

Frankly, to those of us who went in the opposite direction, from the West to Russia, the idea that nobody wants to move from the West to Russia/China, and that they don't offer viable alternatives, sounds comically absurd and outdated. This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best. That may have been true a few decades ago, but not anymore. And, as others on this thread have pointed, just having an alternative is to be handily greeted. It doesn't need to be better, just different.

This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best.

This is precisely the point I am making now, including through my writing. It is important to make, especially after the fever pitch Russo-phobia, the likes even Cold War didn’t see, was unleashed in the West. Strangely, this hatefest is also West’s undoing, not least through exposing of the level of hubris, incompetence, corruption and ignorance of the so called “elites” and academe which serves them. Not to mention that it is dangerous in a military sense.

Firstly, let me echo others in thanks for your articles here at Unz, and the requests to publish more of them.

Your interlocutor in this conversation, peterAUS, is, I believe, like you an emigre from the FSU/RF. He also, like you, served in the SU/RF armed forces. My understanding is that he saw combat, presumably in the first Chechen War, which would certainly explain many of his views. Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

Frankly, to those of us who went in the opposite direction, from the West to Russia, the idea that nobody wants to move from the West to Russia/China, and that they don't offer viable alternatives, sounds comically absurd and outdated. This lack of desire is more easily explained by provincialism, myopia, and the wholesale purchase of the propaganda that everything is awful over there and we are the best. That may have been true a few decades ago, but not anymore. And, as others on this thread have pointed, just having an alternative is to be handily greeted. It doesn't need to be better, just different.

Where he, however, differs from you is his inability to remove the bias of reaffirming his life decisions while analyzing the larger picture of global trends and geopolitics.

I’ve known quite a few people like that, which is amusing in a way, because in their effort to reject their past including any cultural values of their past in order to position themselves as being better for having adopted to a presumably higher functioning and superior civilization especially to their former countrymen, they come off as particularly desperate and reeking of self-hate.

Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

I see.
The regimes with rampant corruption, hence disregard for the rule of law, will be the guardians of an international law.
O.K.

The US is truly the embodiment of respect for international laws and the sovereignty of countries.

“We came, we saw, he died,” [Hillary] joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews

SmoothieX12 notes, your perspective is limited by the window that you’ve put yourself in. In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator. That’s great: but Rome also was popular when it offered free bread and circuses akin to the mass intellectual narcotics that the West provides in the form of media.

In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Oddly enough, I think your apt characterization considerably *understates* the reality of the situation. You may not have seen it, but you might want to take a look at this piece I published a few years ago as a sidebar to my major China/America article:

Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Yeah.Those comprising that..."lowest common denominator"....the "uneducated mass", "the undesirables"....they just don't know what's good for them.But, that's what the great minds (and hearts) of philosopher kings around here will remedy, for the common good of all the humanity, naturally.And, of course, with a bit of propaganda for the regimes in Moscow and Beijing.Just a bit.

Oh, BTW, that part about my origins, background and such....good effort.Not true (but of course, if it were wouldn't I say that), but....not bad.At least shows that there are people here who can....recognize....the "vibe".

I guess there is some misunderstanding here.I did state that in some other threads, but, as the chat got serious enough, let's reiterate.

I do not say that the current West is good.Actually, I say that the current West is actually not good and getting worse.And, I do agree with most of the critique about the West here.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West...they want the West gone.Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge....retribution...payback...stuff like that.Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess...yes...yes...it's declining..blah...blah...but, still...).

So, there are two elements in my train of thought.First, I wouldn't want Russia and China (or any combination of them) having the top place.Yes...yes...I know what you've been saying...they aren't looking to be top..they just want to be equal. I don't believe that. Never happened in the history of humankind, and even if it were, looking how those two regimes deal with own people.......no way I buy that.

So far it's been logical.Now, the second element on my train of thought is Westerners wanting better West, but somehow seeing those two regimes as...what...examples, alternatives.That's the puzzling and amusing part.Of course, some of those are simply "virtue signalling" characters, and some are just naive about how the world works.But, the rest......that's interesting.

The US is truly the embodiment of respect for international laws and the sovereignty of countries.

"We came, we saw, he died," [Hillary] joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews

SmoothieX12 notes, your perspective is limited by the window that you've put yourself in. In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator. That's great: but Rome also was popular when it offered free bread and circuses akin to the mass intellectual narcotics that the West provides in the form of media.

In neither case should it be seen as a sign of strength.

In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Oddly enough, I think your apt characterization considerably *understates* the reality of the situation. You may not have seen it, but you might want to take a look at this piece I published a few years ago as a sidebar to my major China/America article:

All these caveats are legitimate, and the points made here are all credible and convincing (except the implication that it's even theoretically possible to "convert economic power into military power without any lag", but I suspect that's a mis-communication). The piece is a useful corrective to the usual Russia-haters and denigrators who understate Russia's importance in the US-Russian-Chinese balance. And in power projection and pure military capability and technology terms, Russia is still the leader as Martyanov suggests.

But nevertheless China is the senior partner in the relationship in two ways. First it has an awful lot more economic clout (it's not even close - China's gdp is 5-6 times the size of Russia's, and its population is nearly ten times Russia's), and so long as the guns stay silent that is what get things done. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, China is not involved in military action against the US's proxies, and so long as it can continue to avoid major conflict in the western Pacific and in Central Asia, or in Korea, that will likely remain the case. In this situation the impact of military power is still present but it is blunted. Russia's military power has allowed it to defend its allies and some of neighbours against US attempts to subvert and overthrow them, and to make some money through sales, but that's pretty much all.

Second, China's potential is generally rightly recognised as being far greater than Russia's, and barring major and presently unforeseeable events China's military power will ultimately eclipse Russia's over the next few decades. It's only a matter of time, unless something happens to change the present direction of events.

This is not surprising, and nor is it any criticism of Russia. China's present rise is the inevitable and much delayed return to something closer to world historical normal after its disastrous failure to keep up with the European advances after the industrial revolution. It has clearly achieved "take off" in this regard and has partially recovered, but the process still has a long way to go with only the coastal regions even approaching full development. And military power necessarily lags economic power, often by decades. It takes time to build institutions, gain experience, construct large military projects such as aircraft carriers and learn how to use them, and to catch up with cutting edge military technology, and there are often no real shortcuts.

In the long run, China is a potential peer superpower competitor with the US, whereas Russia simply is not, though Russia for certain can stand up for itself. But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US's fading global dominance until the threat has passed (it may already have passed, but it would be premature and dangerous to assume so).

But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US’s fading global dominance until the threat has passed

Very true. The key, right now, is the Russian nuclear capability. If they didn’t have that, both countries would have been gone long time ago. No amount of money or production can help if the other party brings a gun to the meeting.

The “other” party is not really the US, though. On the surface, yes – but the real enemy of the planet is the shadow New World Order government. The “elite” in the US and Europe is deeply compromised by an outside agent.

The US is truly the embodiment of respect for international laws and the sovereignty of countries.

"We came, we saw, he died," [Hillary] joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews

SmoothieX12 notes, your perspective is limited by the window that you've put yourself in. In lobbying was defined as corruption, as it ought to be, then the US would be immensely and inordinarily corrupt. Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator. That's great: but Rome also was popular when it offered free bread and circuses akin to the mass intellectual narcotics that the West provides in the form of media.

In neither case should it be seen as a sign of strength.

Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Yeah.
Those comprising that…”lowest common denominator”….the “uneducated mass”, “the undesirables”….they just don’t know what’s good for them.
But, that’s what the great minds (and hearts) of philosopher kings around here will remedy, for the common good of all the humanity, naturally.
And, of course, with a bit of propaganda for the regimes in Moscow and Beijing.
Just a bit.

Oh, BTW, that part about my origins, background and such….good effort.
Not true (but of course, if it were wouldn’t I say that), but….not bad.
At least shows that there are people here who can….recognize….the “vibe”.

I guess there is some misunderstanding here.
I did state that in some other threads, but, as the chat got serious enough, let’s reiterate.

I do not say that the current West is good.
Actually, I say that the current West is actually not good and getting worse.
And, I do agree with most of the critique about the West here.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West…they want the West gone.
Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge….retribution…payback…stuff like that.
Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess…yes…yes…it’s declining..blah…blah…but, still…).

So, there are two elements in my train of thought.
First, I wouldn’t want Russia and China (or any combination of them) having the top place.
Yes…yes…I know what you’ve been saying…they aren’t looking to be top..they just want to be equal.
I don’t believe that.
Never happened in the history of humankind, and even if it were, looking how those two regimes deal with own people…….no way I buy that.

So far it’s been logical.
Now, the second element on my train of thought is Westerners wanting better West, but somehow seeing those two regimes as…what…examples, alternatives.
That’s the puzzling and amusing part.
Of course, some of those are simply “virtue signalling” characters, and some are just naive about how the world works.
But, the rest……that’s interesting.

If the way you wrote your comment reflects the way you think and talk in real life, I can imagine how disconnected and fragmented your thought would be.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West…they want the West gone.
Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge….retribution…payback…stuff like that.
Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess…yes…yes…it’s declining..blah…blah…but, still…).

I honestly don't think everyone on this earth want the West gone. They just want to be left alone and live their lives. It's the West that tends to dictate what your life should be.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Like a dog to his vomit, you keep coming back to this completely off-point notion. The question is not whether it's a "feasible alternative", as if somebody was arguing that (eg) Denmark should become Chinese, or Russian. The question is whether Denmark will be allowed to be Danish . Under the current rubric, it will not. Under the multi-polar rubric, it will be able to if it wants to. It is in that sense that it is a "better" alternative for the West.

As for the corruption anecdotes, I have no idea what country these are supposed to have happened in. Perhaps Romania? Ukraine? India? I lived almost 10 yrs in China, during which I drove from one end of the country to the other, and didn't encounter anything like that even once from any official person. Not even once. Russia is not as well known to me, but during several stays there I experienced exactly the same, with the caveat that Russian officialdom tends to be a lot less helpful and courteous than the Chinese. In that regard, I found the Germans, and particularly the East Germans amongst the worst of all I've encountered.

In any case, the multi-polar mantra says that countries have to sort that stuff out by themselves, and in their own way. Whether it's democracy, monarchy, or tyranny, tooth & claw capitalism or cradle-to-grave socialism they choose, nobody will have the God-given right to sanction them, foment colourful revolutions, or bomb them if they don't, or don't develop the way some 3-parts-mad globalist mantra wants them to. That is all there is to it, really. The N. Koreas of the world will be allowed to wallow in whatever social pathology they wish to create. So long as they don't threaten their neighbours, they're welcome to it.

That’s why both Russians and Chinese immigrate into US/UK/Australia etc.
And not other way around.

Many people immigrate in many places, yet, somehow, I don't see Russia's and China's de-population due to immigration. Moreover, should you have bothered to acquaint yourself with immigration statistics (from UN to IMF, as an example) you would know that Russia is #2 destination for immigration in the world, right behind the United States. But other this is, your argument suffers from one major flaw--you look at the still photograph, while world is a moving picture. It is also clear that you are completely detached from modern Russia realities (yes, with all Russia's corruption and other social diseases nobody denies) and prefer not to look beyond some rigid ideological structures. and per your line of "US/UK/Australia"--three very different entities which can not be compared in any way. As per corruption in the West--refresh you memory, say, regarding last election cycle in US.

Well…didn’t actually plan to reply to your post, but…
Briefly:

“US/UK/Australia”–three very different entities which can not be compared in any way

You are serious?
“Anglos”……………….
Allies in all the wars……….
Five Eyes.

….Russia’s corruption and other social diseases nobody denies

That.
Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of “authority”.
Including health practitioners…
Plain extortion in all but name….bribes…….even threats and collusion with organized crime.
Which all affects daily life of an average Russian.
Being stopped by a traffic cop. Waiting/getting medical service. Getting any sort of permit from “authorities”.
Etc….

I just don’t think you’ll find THAT level and type of corruption in US (and, yes, UK and Australia).

LOL. Russia, then USSR were allies with US since American Civil War. You should do better than that. This is apart from the fact that UK and, especially, Australia are economic midgets compared to US and are, for the lack of better word, lackeys. Dynamics are also very different in each of three nations and soon one of them will hardly be identified as "Anglo", this is not to mention US whose demographics has very little to do with "Anglo" anymore.

Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of “authority”.

You haven't been in Russia lately. But visit D.C. for warmup. Try Appropriations Committee. You are also, evidently, not very well acquainted with US Military-Industrial Complex. As per UK--one word "Rotherham". But, as I said, continue to convince yourself. As long as it works for you, who am I to interfere.

“US/UK/Australia”–three very different entities which can not be compared in any way

You are serious?
"Anglos"...................
Allies in all the wars..........
Five Eyes.

....Russia’s corruption and other social diseases nobody denies

That.
Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of "authority".
Including health practitioners...
Plain extortion in all but name....bribes.......even threats and collusion with organized crime.
Which all affects daily life of an average Russian.
Being stopped by a traffic cop. Waiting/getting medical service. Getting any sort of permit from "authorities".
Etc....

I just don't think you'll find THAT level and type of corruption in US (and, yes, UK and Australia).

Allies in all the wars……….

LOL. Russia, then USSR were allies with US since American Civil War. You should do better than that. This is apart from the fact that UK and, especially, Australia are economic midgets compared to US and are, for the lack of better word, lackeys. Dynamics are also very different in each of three nations and soon one of them will hardly be identified as “Anglo”, this is not to mention US whose demographics has very little to do with “Anglo” anymore.

Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of “authority”.

You haven’t been in Russia lately. But visit D.C. for warmup. Try Appropriations Committee. You are also, evidently, not very well acquainted with US Military-Industrial Complex. As per UK–one word “Rotherham”. But, as I said, continue to convince yourself. As long as it works for you, who am I to interfere.

Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Yeah.Those comprising that..."lowest common denominator"....the "uneducated mass", "the undesirables"....they just don't know what's good for them.But, that's what the great minds (and hearts) of philosopher kings around here will remedy, for the common good of all the humanity, naturally.And, of course, with a bit of propaganda for the regimes in Moscow and Beijing.Just a bit.

Oh, BTW, that part about my origins, background and such....good effort.Not true (but of course, if it were wouldn't I say that), but....not bad.At least shows that there are people here who can....recognize....the "vibe".

I guess there is some misunderstanding here.I did state that in some other threads, but, as the chat got serious enough, let's reiterate.

I do not say that the current West is good.Actually, I say that the current West is actually not good and getting worse.And, I do agree with most of the critique about the West here.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West...they want the West gone.Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge....retribution...payback...stuff like that.Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess...yes...yes...it's declining..blah...blah...but, still...).

So, there are two elements in my train of thought.First, I wouldn't want Russia and China (or any combination of them) having the top place.Yes...yes...I know what you've been saying...they aren't looking to be top..they just want to be equal. I don't believe that. Never happened in the history of humankind, and even if it were, looking how those two regimes deal with own people.......no way I buy that.

So far it's been logical.Now, the second element on my train of thought is Westerners wanting better West, but somehow seeing those two regimes as...what...examples, alternatives.That's the puzzling and amusing part.Of course, some of those are simply "virtue signalling" characters, and some are just naive about how the world works.But, the rest......that's interesting.

If the way you wrote your comment reflects the way you think and talk in real life, I can imagine how disconnected and fragmented your thought would be.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West…they want the West gone.
Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge….retribution…payback…stuff like that.
Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess…yes…yes…it’s declining..blah…blah…but, still…).

I honestly don’t think everyone on this earth want the West gone. They just want to be left alone and live their lives. It’s the West that tends to dictate what your life should be.

“US/UK/Australia”–three very different entities which can not be compared in any way

You are serious?
"Anglos"...................
Allies in all the wars..........
Five Eyes.

....Russia’s corruption and other social diseases nobody denies

That.
Daily, pervasive, corruption in dealing with any type/level of "authority".
Including health practitioners...
Plain extortion in all but name....bribes.......even threats and collusion with organized crime.
Which all affects daily life of an average Russian.
Being stopped by a traffic cop. Waiting/getting medical service. Getting any sort of permit from "authorities".
Etc....

I just don't think you'll find THAT level and type of corruption in US (and, yes, UK and Australia).

Bringing up UK functional roles in 21st century USA/China/Russia trilogy is still understandable. Australia? You’d gotta be kidding me.

I might as well talk about why everyone wants to migrate to New Zealand and milk NZ cows to earn more money.

I certainly agree that we have gone beyond the point at which a US victory can be forecast with sufficient confidence (and RAND be damned) for the likes of Bannon to be advising the US regime to go to war with China now because it's "now or never". If there was a now or never time, it was in the past.

That doesn't mean the US foreign policy elite isn't stupid enough to do it, of course. In fact recent history strongly suggests it is entirely foolish enough to do so, if it can find a President as gullible as Bush II to do it.

The USA needs to leverage its existing advantages to cut favorable deals with China and withdraw from the Western Pacific. Let the Japanese defend their own damn islands, which I have no doubt they are capable of doing.

Agreed. It would have the added advantage of making North Korea China's and South Korea's problem.

Randal

* Agreed. It would have the added advantage of making North Korea China’s and South Korea’s problem.*

Forget about that ‘NK ICBM’ hullabaloo !

Nk has always been a thorn in Beijing’s side, made in USA.

The ultimate bogeyman that allows Washington to…..

1] keep its Okinawa base inspite of fierce opposition from the locals,
2] automatic renewal of US/SK ‘defence’ pact,
3] install an ABM right at China’s doorstep,
4] blow away China/SK honeymoon under mdm Park,
5] drive a further wedge bet China/NK.
6] justify more pork for the barrel,
7] put China on the defensive as ‘enabler of the mad Kim’.
8] push the bitter rivals Tokyo/Seoul together , no mean feat that.

One stone kills 8 birds.

The Kim/uncle sham kabuki works so well some like William Engdhal actually call NK Pentagon’s trojan horse. I must say he’s got a point there.

The initial premise that invasions were successful due to lack of geographical barriers is weak.
But, agree that the invasions were/are very important part of Russian psyche.
The latest one, by Nazi Germany, in particular.
Then, he shifts into Russia becoming an empire by acquiring Kazan and expanding into South.With the same initial geography?
And, then, that empire engaged, for the next two centuries, in wars with the opponents from the West side.
An interesting point the presenter is pushing is that, apparently, Russia had to expand to create more space for defence.
Buffers zones were/are a must.
Now, that’s a good, very good actually, explanation for “expansion”. Trump could do the same I guess: “we have a defenceless southern border; we must secure our defence by expanding South.
A good line would be Coatzacoalcos-Saline Cruz.”
And Israel could do the same. Definitely Israel.
Now, those “land barriers” at 6:21 are total crap. But a very good excuse.
“Geographic barriers”. Nice spin.
Pic at 7:27 is nice. For defence only, of course.
At least pretty straightforward with “massive deportations”, “genocide”, “assimilation” and “colonization”.
The rest is pointing to the tip of the iceberg.

To try to get the lower levels of iceberg, I’d start with the Great Schism of 1054, and go through the Reformation (and the LACK of it in the East).
Just an idea.

If the way you wrote your comment reflects the way you think and talk in real life, I can imagine how disconnected and fragmented your thought would be.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West…they want the West gone.
Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge….retribution…payback…stuff like that.
Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess…yes…yes…it’s declining..blah…blah…but, still…).

I honestly don't think everyone on this earth want the West gone. They just want to be left alone and live their lives. It's the West that tends to dictate what your life should be.

I honestly don’t think everyone on this earth want the West gone. They just want to be left alone and live their lives. It’s the West that tends to dictate what your life should be.

The initial premise that invasions were successful due to lack of geographical barriers is weak.
But, agree that the invasions were/are very important part of Russian psyche.
The latest one, by Nazi Germany, in particular.
Then, he shifts into Russia becoming an empire by acquiring Kazan and expanding into South.With the same initial geography?
And, then, that empire engaged, for the next two centuries, in wars with the opponents from the West side.
An interesting point the presenter is pushing is that, apparently, Russia had to expand to create more space for defence.
Buffers zones were/are a must.
Now, that’s a good, very good actually, explanation for “expansion”. Trump could do the same I guess: “we have a defenceless southern border; we must secure our defence by expanding South.
A good line would be Coatzacoalcos-Saline Cruz.”
And Israel could do the same. Definitely Israel.
Now, those “land barriers” at 6:21 are total crap. But a very good excuse.
“Geographic barriers”. Nice spin.
Pic at 7:27 is nice. For defence only, of course.
At least pretty straightforward with “massive deportations”, “genocide”, “assimilation” and “colonization”.
The rest is pointing to the tip of the iceberg.

To try to get the lower levels of iceberg, I’d start with the Great Schism of 1054, and go through the Reformation (and the LACK of it in the East).
Just an idea.

I actually tend to call Taiwan as the "future special economic zone of China," as its pretty clear that its been taken over by moronic neisenren who have successfully brought in glamorous innovations such as same-sex marriage, endless quibblings about "democracy" and absolutely zero economic growth at all, all while being great running dogs who pining to be ruled by the next master. Pathetic people. Truly pathetic people.

That I have a generally sarcastic and cynical bent shouldn't be taken that I don't think that overall, China is probably doing the right thing for herself as well as the belief that challenging and disrupting the hegemonic "Western" control is an overall good.

China has the world fastest supercomputer that beat up US supercomputer, and not even Russia has on parity is a proven record that China can catch the whole aerospace technology beyond doubt. The cutting edges of all technology development measured by the controlled system. Be it in military defense, intelegent surveilance, and banking in economic sector with complexity of softwares that drived in its core. China already used an alternative to SWIFT for all its financial transactions this mean its just one step to be ahead of US and European all advanced technology and doubt about it.

@Joe Wong
Daniel Chieh is most likely a taidu. Yes, f**k them til the end days Jesus dons a Mao suite, ascends the Tiananmen Podium and announces Peace on Earth in Putonghua

I actually tend to call Taiwan as the “future special economic zone of China,” as its pretty clear that its been taken over by moronic neisenren who have successfully brought in glamorous innovations such as same-sex marriage, endless quibblings about “democracy” and absolutely zero economic growth at all, all while being great running dogs who pining to be ruled by the next master. Pathetic people. Truly pathetic people.

That I have a generally sarcastic and cynical bent shouldn’t be taken that I don’t think that overall, China is probably doing the right thing for herself as well as the belief that challenging and disrupting the hegemonic “Western” control is an overall good.

China has the world fastest supercomputer that beat up US supercomputer, and not even Russia has on parity is a proven record that China can catch the whole aerospace technology beyond doubt. The cutting edges of all technology development measured by the controlled system. Be it in military defense, intelegent surveilance, and banking in economic sector with complexity of softwares that drived in its core. China already used an alternative to SWIFT for all its financial transactions this mean its just one step to be ahead of US and European all advanced technology and doubt about it.

China already used an alternative to SWIFT for all its financial transactions this mean its just one step to be ahead of US and European all advanced technology and doubt about it.

:))) Just in case, check which commercial jets dominate China’s airports. Are they Chinese-produced?

Russia & China are working on international structures to prevent any one country from dominating geo-politics again.

I see.
The regimes with rampant corruption, hence disregard for the rule of law, will be the guardians of an international law.
O.K.

America, too, once pretended that promoting democracy would allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they saw fit. Eventually, it became clear that America would keep on promoting democracy (*cough*) in any country whose peoples didn’t govern themselves as America saw fit (and keep on doing it, more than once if necessary, until they did).

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

As for corruption, yes, if a certain country legalizes bribery and calls it “lobbying”, then there is no illegal corruption going on. That is a fact. The U.S. should take an idea from Lord Vetinari and legalize murder-for-hire as well, then their violent crime rates will go way down.

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

Agree.

My disagreement is with fanboy and unrealistic approach in that disillusionment.
Instead of taking ONLY positive elements of Russia/China (and combination thereof), and there are not many comparing to the West in the first place, we often see pure delusion around.
Some would say that delusion and detachment from reality brought the problem on the West in the first place.

As for corruption, well, how about just this:
A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.
A traffic cop stops you->”papers”->if you don’t put money with the papers you WILL get fine for something.
You apply for some sort of business permit->if you don’t pay certain sum to "authorities" you will NOT get the permit.
You get the permit and own the business->if you don’t keep paying certain “authorities” you WILL get inspections and fines which will kill your business.
I could go on for hours……

THAT is the corruption I am talking about. It is everywhere.
Including education system, security services, military…. Everywhere.

I’ll leave to critical minds to deduct what effect that has to those elements of society in particular and the society in general.

And, I just haven’t seen THAT level/type/pervasiveness anywhere in the West. Anywhere.

America, too, once pretended that promoting democracy would allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they saw fit. Eventually, it became clear that America would keep on promoting democracy (*cough*) in any country whose peoples didn't govern themselves as America saw fit (and keep on doing it, more than once if necessary, until they did).

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We'll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn't be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

As for corruption, yes, if a certain country legalizes bribery and calls it "lobbying", then there is no illegal corruption going on. That is a fact. The U.S. should take an idea from Lord Vetinari and legalize murder-for-hire as well, then their violent crime rates will go way down.

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

Agree.

My disagreement is with fanboy and unrealistic approach in that disillusionment.
Instead of taking ONLY positive elements of Russia/China (and combination thereof), and there are not many comparing to the West in the first place, we often see pure delusion around.
Some would say that delusion and detachment from reality brought the problem on the West in the first place.

As for corruption, well, how about just this:
A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.
A traffic cop stops you->”papers”->if you don’t put money with the papers you WILL get fine for something.
You apply for some sort of business permit->if you don’t pay certain sum to “authorities” you will NOT get the permit.
You get the permit and own the business->if you don’t keep paying certain “authorities” you WILL get inspections and fines which will kill your business.
I could go on for hours……

THAT is the corruption I am talking about. It is everywhere.
Including education system, security services, military…. Everywhere.

I’ll leave to critical minds to deduct what effect that has to those elements of society in particular and the society in general.

And, I just haven’t seen THAT level/type/pervasiveness anywhere in the West. Anywhere.

I can't find it right now, but a few months ago I read an article by a Russian businessman who compared how his business operated in the late 1990s vs. today. From what he said, it is now easier operate legally than not, whereas before it was easier to hide from the law.

I'm not a businessman, but when I visited Russia for two months in 2015, it looked startlingly modern and thriving, a great contrast to how it had looked 10 or 20 years earlier. Cars even stop to wait for pedestrians, now. It looked like a place that had begun to respect itself. None of the people who drove me in their cars ever got stopped by the traffic cops, or seemed particularly worried about them. Maybe it doesn't happen all that often? By the way, traffic cops here in Canada can get bribed as well. A coworker told me of how he placed $200 in his license after being stopped, then gave it to the officer and looked the other way. When he looked back, the money was gone and the officer had walked away without writing up the ticket. Perhaps in Russia it would be cheaper...
Corruption exists here, too. A big shadow economy of factories that hire recent immigrants for under minimum wage (their buses park nearby, someone I knew worked for them). Factories dumping nasty-smelling chemicals into my neighbourhood air after work-hours for the past 10 years, with no-one stopping them. Lots of sliminess in the construction sector: http://globalnews.ca/news/1671959/14-highlights-from-quebecs-corruption-inquiry/ (this was in Quebec, but the main difference with Ontario I think is that they just haven't gotten caught yet here).
The dues that you have to pay to "certain authorities" here in Ontario are fully official. There are unions/guilds and such, and they have many rules in most industries (with a few exceptions in newer ones, such as IT) that make it difficult for newcomers to enter them. That's why most of the highly-skilled immigrants end up working as taxi drivers or homemakers, letting their education go to waste. For example, anyone who wants to work in medicine must spend a few years getting another higher-education degree, as they will not accept international credentials (in contrast to Germany, for example, which does).

I guess my point is that there is more than one way to make life difficult for people. The elites always find some way to raise entry barriers to help secure their own positions. Sometimes those barriers are illegal; other times, they have the full force of the law backing them. But either way, they're still barriers. Did you see Ron Unz's link in his earlier comment?

I don't know just how bad Russia's barriers are right now. From the looks of things, the place was thriving, so it's likely much better now than it used to be. Levada Center polling seems to suggest as much: https://www.levada.ru/en/2015/12/17/foreign-agents/ (check the question "DO YOU FEEL LIKE A FREE PERSON IN OUR SOCIETY?" and how the answers have changed over time)

I actually got stealth-interviewed and then offered a job while waiting for a train. What the heck? That has never, ever happened to me here.

A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.

Waiting lists are terribly long in China, but the wealthy skip it by going to private clinics. Incidentally, this is the same thing done by the Finnish. And while this is a loose ancedote, my mother who suffered an accident in the United States was immediately misdiagnosed, provided incorrect treatment, and almost suffered septic shock(perhaps because the hospital was overworked?); we rushed her back to Asia, where she had much better care for less than a tenth of the price.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I'm familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

This does not describe China at present, or for that matter, Russia to the best of my knowledge.

Your argument essentially boils down to that the West is likely better at hoodwinking the lowest common denominator.

Yeah.Those comprising that..."lowest common denominator"....the "uneducated mass", "the undesirables"....they just don't know what's good for them.But, that's what the great minds (and hearts) of philosopher kings around here will remedy, for the common good of all the humanity, naturally.And, of course, with a bit of propaganda for the regimes in Moscow and Beijing.Just a bit.

Oh, BTW, that part about my origins, background and such....good effort.Not true (but of course, if it were wouldn't I say that), but....not bad.At least shows that there are people here who can....recognize....the "vibe".

I guess there is some misunderstanding here.I did state that in some other threads, but, as the chat got serious enough, let's reiterate.

I do not say that the current West is good.Actually, I say that the current West is actually not good and getting worse.And, I do agree with most of the critique about the West here.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Now, we also know there are plenty of those who do not want the better West...they want the West gone.Some of those want the West gone because the West messed them up good.They want revenge....retribution...payback...stuff like that.Some of those want the West gone so they can replace it on the top of the power ruling this world (we do agree that the West is the top power I guess...yes...yes...it's declining..blah...blah...but, still...).

So, there are two elements in my train of thought.First, I wouldn't want Russia and China (or any combination of them) having the top place.Yes...yes...I know what you've been saying...they aren't looking to be top..they just want to be equal. I don't believe that. Never happened in the history of humankind, and even if it were, looking how those two regimes deal with own people.......no way I buy that.

So far it's been logical.Now, the second element on my train of thought is Westerners wanting better West, but somehow seeing those two regimes as...what...examples, alternatives.That's the puzzling and amusing part.Of course, some of those are simply "virtue signalling" characters, and some are just naive about how the world works.But, the rest......that's interesting.

What I do not think is that the Russia, China, or any combination of those two, is BETTER and represents the feasible alternative for better West.

Like a dog to his vomit, you keep coming back to this completely off-point notion. The question is not whether it’s a “feasible alternative”, as if somebody was arguing that (eg) Denmark should become Chinese, or Russian. The question is whether Denmark will be allowed to be Danish . Under the current rubric, it will not. Under the multi-polar rubric, it will be able to if it wants to. It is in that sense that it is a “better” alternative for the West.

As for the corruption anecdotes, I have no idea what country these are supposed to have happened in. Perhaps Romania? Ukraine? India? I lived almost 10 yrs in China, during which I drove from one end of the country to the other, and didn’t encounter anything like that even once from any official person. Not even once. Russia is not as well known to me, but during several stays there I experienced exactly the same, with the caveat that Russian officialdom tends to be a lot less helpful and courteous than the Chinese. In that regard, I found the Germans, and particularly the East Germans amongst the worst of all I’ve encountered.

In any case, the multi-polar mantra says that countries have to sort that stuff out by themselves, and in their own way. Whether it’s democracy, monarchy, or tyranny, tooth & claw capitalism or cradle-to-grave socialism they choose, nobody will have the God-given right to sanction them, foment colourful revolutions, or bomb them if they don’t, or don’t develop the way some 3-parts-mad globalist mantra wants them to. That is all there is to it, really. The N. Koreas of the world will be allowed to wallow in whatever social pathology they wish to create. So long as they don’t threaten their neighbours, they’re welcome to it.

Nobody is against multipolar world in principle.
Multipolar world with players with CURRENT state of affairs in Russia first and foremost, and then China, is another matter.

… Russia is not as well known to me.

Obviously.

In any case, the multi-polar mantra says that countries have to sort that stuff out by themselves, and in their own way. Whether it’s democracy, monarchy, or tyranny, tooth & claw capitalism or cradle-to-grave socialism they choose, nobody will have the God-given right to sanction them, foment colourful revolutions, or bomb them if they don’t, or don’t develop the way some 3-parts-mad globalist mantra wants them to. That is all there is to it, really.

Two issues.

Weird (for a lack of better word) and less important first.
Say, there is a tyranny where a nation majority goes on genocide against a minority. Nobody does anything?

Noble and naïve, but more important second.
That mantra hasn’t worked so far in the history of mankind. It’s always a powerful becoming less powerful and a less powerful from before taking over.
Russia/China or combination thereof taking over isn’t a good idea.

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

Agree.

My disagreement is with fanboy and unrealistic approach in that disillusionment.
Instead of taking ONLY positive elements of Russia/China (and combination thereof), and there are not many comparing to the West in the first place, we often see pure delusion around.
Some would say that delusion and detachment from reality brought the problem on the West in the first place.

As for corruption, well, how about just this:
A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.
A traffic cop stops you->”papers”->if you don’t put money with the papers you WILL get fine for something.
You apply for some sort of business permit->if you don’t pay certain sum to "authorities" you will NOT get the permit.
You get the permit and own the business->if you don’t keep paying certain “authorities” you WILL get inspections and fines which will kill your business.
I could go on for hours……

THAT is the corruption I am talking about. It is everywhere.
Including education system, security services, military…. Everywhere.

I’ll leave to critical minds to deduct what effect that has to those elements of society in particular and the society in general.

And, I just haven’t seen THAT level/type/pervasiveness anywhere in the West. Anywhere.

security services, military…. Everywhere.

And your claim about corruption in Armed Forces is supported exactly how? From media?

We both know that we can "get" a unit in 5 minutes flat just by looking at how they do (or not do) certain things.Any size...We can see, in instant, past "appearances".Small things civilians/amateurs simply don't notice even if you point them to.

And we both know that no armed forces are better than a society they belong to.

Or, the organizational culture of armed forces is always the same as CULTURE of the society they belong to.

Work ethic......respect of rule of law....corruption......working relationships..stuff like that.

Now, true, one CAN isolate a small special force unit and have it up to very high standards regardless how shitty a society is.Even a small expeditionary force.

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

Agree.

My disagreement is with fanboy and unrealistic approach in that disillusionment.
Instead of taking ONLY positive elements of Russia/China (and combination thereof), and there are not many comparing to the West in the first place, we often see pure delusion around.
Some would say that delusion and detachment from reality brought the problem on the West in the first place.

As for corruption, well, how about just this:
A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.
A traffic cop stops you->”papers”->if you don’t put money with the papers you WILL get fine for something.
You apply for some sort of business permit->if you don’t pay certain sum to "authorities" you will NOT get the permit.
You get the permit and own the business->if you don’t keep paying certain “authorities” you WILL get inspections and fines which will kill your business.
I could go on for hours……

THAT is the corruption I am talking about. It is everywhere.
Including education system, security services, military…. Everywhere.

I’ll leave to critical minds to deduct what effect that has to those elements of society in particular and the society in general.

And, I just haven’t seen THAT level/type/pervasiveness anywhere in the West. Anywhere.

I can’t find it right now, but a few months ago I read an article by a Russian businessman who compared how his business operated in the late 1990s vs. today. From what he said, it is now easier operate legally than not, whereas before it was easier to hide from the law.

I’m not a businessman, but when I visited Russia for two months in 2015, it looked startlingly modern and thriving, a great contrast to how it had looked 10 or 20 years earlier. Cars even stop to wait for pedestrians, now. It looked like a place that had begun to respect itself. None of the people who drove me in their cars ever got stopped by the traffic cops, or seemed particularly worried about them. Maybe it doesn’t happen all that often? By the way, traffic cops here in Canada can get bribed as well. A coworker told me of how he placed $200 in his license after being stopped, then gave it to the officer and looked the other way. When he looked back, the money was gone and the officer had walked away without writing up the ticket. Perhaps in Russia it would be cheaper…
Corruption exists here, too. A big shadow economy of factories that hire recent immigrants for under minimum wage (their buses park nearby, someone I knew worked for them). Factories dumping nasty-smelling chemicals into my neighbourhood air after work-hours for the past 10 years, with no-one stopping them. Lots of sliminess in the construction sector: http://globalnews.ca/news/1671959/14-highlights-from-quebecs-corruption-inquiry/ (this was in Quebec, but the main difference with Ontario I think is that they just haven’t gotten caught yet here).
The dues that you have to pay to “certain authorities” here in Ontario are fully official. There are unions/guilds and such, and they have many rules in most industries (with a few exceptions in newer ones, such as IT) that make it difficult for newcomers to enter them. That’s why most of the highly-skilled immigrants end up working as taxi drivers or homemakers, letting their education go to waste. For example, anyone who wants to work in medicine must spend a few years getting another higher-education degree, as they will not accept international credentials (in contrast to Germany, for example, which does).

I guess my point is that there is more than one way to make life difficult for people. The elites always find some way to raise entry barriers to help secure their own positions. Sometimes those barriers are illegal; other times, they have the full force of the law backing them. But either way, they’re still barriers. Did you see Ron Unz’s link in his earlier comment?

I don’t know just how bad Russia’s barriers are right now. From the looks of things, the place was thriving, so it’s likely much better now than it used to be. Levada Center polling seems to suggest as much: https://www.levada.ru/en/2015/12/17/foreign-agents/ (check the question “DO YOU FEEL LIKE A FREE PERSON IN OUR SOCIETY?” and how the answers have changed over time)

I actually got stealth-interviewed and then offered a job while waiting for a train. What the heck? That has never, ever happened to me here.

I guess my point is that there is more than one way to make life difficult for people.

Oh...definitely.
Hell, nobody said there wasn't any corruption in the West.
"Old boys network", "not what you know but who you know" etc.
And, I do agree that under Putin regime things got better. At least in Moscow and other big cities, regional centers in particular.
Now, in smaller places in regions, things are bit worse in that regard.

I guess my point is that the impact of the corruption on the life of an average citizen is much harder in Russia than in the West.

The only really relevant proof is migration.
At the moment people migrate from Russia into West much more than the other way around.
Simple really.

And that goes back to my main premise: Russia,as it stands now, isn't feasible alternative for the current West.
The alternative, solutions to the problems of the West is somewhere else.
Keeping deluded with Russia takes time and resources from focusing on finding that solution. The West needs hard critical thinking, not delusions.
I guess the delusions brought current problems in the first place.
And, the time is running out. Demographics IS destiny.
Simple, again.

China and Russia now claim that they will bolster international law and national sovereignty, which will (a bit of deja vu here) allow the different peoples of the world to govern themselves as they see fit. We’ll see if the end results are any different. But until then, we shouldn’t be surprised if the Chinese-Russian vision gains sympathy from people around the world who are disillusioned with the American one.

Agree.

My disagreement is with fanboy and unrealistic approach in that disillusionment.
Instead of taking ONLY positive elements of Russia/China (and combination thereof), and there are not many comparing to the West in the first place, we often see pure delusion around.
Some would say that delusion and detachment from reality brought the problem on the West in the first place.

As for corruption, well, how about just this:
A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.
A traffic cop stops you->”papers”->if you don’t put money with the papers you WILL get fine for something.
You apply for some sort of business permit->if you don’t pay certain sum to "authorities" you will NOT get the permit.
You get the permit and own the business->if you don’t keep paying certain “authorities” you WILL get inspections and fines which will kill your business.
I could go on for hours……

THAT is the corruption I am talking about. It is everywhere.
Including education system, security services, military…. Everywhere.

I’ll leave to critical minds to deduct what effect that has to those elements of society in particular and the society in general.

And, I just haven’t seen THAT level/type/pervasiveness anywhere in the West. Anywhere.

A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.

Waiting lists are terribly long in China, but the wealthy skip it by going to private clinics. Incidentally, this is the same thing done by the Finnish. And while this is a loose ancedote, my mother who suffered an accident in the United States was immediately misdiagnosed, provided incorrect treatment, and almost suffered septic shock(perhaps because the hospital was overworked?); we rushed her back to Asia, where she had much better care for less than a tenth of the price.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I’m familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

This does not describe China at present, or for that matter, Russia to the best of my knowledge.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I’m familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

Agree.
My point exactly.

And, I do stand by the assertion that Russia is of that type.
Due to size, RESOURCES and inherent resilience of Russians, the regime in Moscow can accomplish a lot. But, much less than it could if it weren't for that "crippling" factor.
Isn't Russia probably the only country in the world which wouldn't need to import almost anything?
And, still.......
I mean, this conversation has been regurgitated thousands of times in much more serious places than a Web site.
Fact are facts.
Now, WHY is that, well, I'd leave it to the Russians.
My personal take is that the West resolved THAT issue with Reformation. But, of course, just an opinion.

Take "unified foreign policy" for example.
Would you call the approach to Ukraine unified...competent.....fast enough?
Putin's regime is a fine balancing act between several factions; some of them totally opposite.

But, at the end of the day that's not important.
What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.
And, as I said before, either people migrating from Russia to the West are idiots, or they have good reasons.
Maybe we should ask them why they do it?

As for China, similar really, for the topic of this discussion.........alternative.
I work with a LOT of Chinese. I speak with several persons who work in China.
Not.......a...feasible....alternative.

I can't find it right now, but a few months ago I read an article by a Russian businessman who compared how his business operated in the late 1990s vs. today. From what he said, it is now easier operate legally than not, whereas before it was easier to hide from the law.

I'm not a businessman, but when I visited Russia for two months in 2015, it looked startlingly modern and thriving, a great contrast to how it had looked 10 or 20 years earlier. Cars even stop to wait for pedestrians, now. It looked like a place that had begun to respect itself. None of the people who drove me in their cars ever got stopped by the traffic cops, or seemed particularly worried about them. Maybe it doesn't happen all that often? By the way, traffic cops here in Canada can get bribed as well. A coworker told me of how he placed $200 in his license after being stopped, then gave it to the officer and looked the other way. When he looked back, the money was gone and the officer had walked away without writing up the ticket. Perhaps in Russia it would be cheaper...
Corruption exists here, too. A big shadow economy of factories that hire recent immigrants for under minimum wage (their buses park nearby, someone I knew worked for them). Factories dumping nasty-smelling chemicals into my neighbourhood air after work-hours for the past 10 years, with no-one stopping them. Lots of sliminess in the construction sector: http://globalnews.ca/news/1671959/14-highlights-from-quebecs-corruption-inquiry/ (this was in Quebec, but the main difference with Ontario I think is that they just haven't gotten caught yet here).
The dues that you have to pay to "certain authorities" here in Ontario are fully official. There are unions/guilds and such, and they have many rules in most industries (with a few exceptions in newer ones, such as IT) that make it difficult for newcomers to enter them. That's why most of the highly-skilled immigrants end up working as taxi drivers or homemakers, letting their education go to waste. For example, anyone who wants to work in medicine must spend a few years getting another higher-education degree, as they will not accept international credentials (in contrast to Germany, for example, which does).

I guess my point is that there is more than one way to make life difficult for people. The elites always find some way to raise entry barriers to help secure their own positions. Sometimes those barriers are illegal; other times, they have the full force of the law backing them. But either way, they're still barriers. Did you see Ron Unz's link in his earlier comment?

I don't know just how bad Russia's barriers are right now. From the looks of things, the place was thriving, so it's likely much better now than it used to be. Levada Center polling seems to suggest as much: https://www.levada.ru/en/2015/12/17/foreign-agents/ (check the question "DO YOU FEEL LIKE A FREE PERSON IN OUR SOCIETY?" and how the answers have changed over time)

I actually got stealth-interviewed and then offered a job while waiting for a train. What the heck? That has never, ever happened to me here.

I guess my point is that there is more than one way to make life difficult for people.

Oh…definitely.
Hell, nobody said there wasn’t any corruption in the West.
“Old boys network”, “not what you know but who you know” etc.
And, I do agree that under Putin regime things got better. At least in Moscow and other big cities, regional centers in particular.
Now, in smaller places in regions, things are bit worse in that regard.

I guess my point is that the impact of the corruption on the life of an average citizen is much harder in Russia than in the West.

The only really relevant proof is migration.
At the moment people migrate from Russia into West much more than the other way around.
Simple really.

And that goes back to my main premise: Russia,as it stands now, isn’t feasible alternative for the current West.
The alternative, solutions to the problems of the West is somewhere else.
Keeping deluded with Russia takes time and resources from focusing on finding that solution. The West needs hard critical thinking, not delusions.
I guess the delusions brought current problems in the first place.
And, the time is running out. Demographics IS destiny.
Simple, again.

A woman is sick (women things)->She goes to the specialist, early in the morning->She sits in the waiting room all day watching ….”privileged”….walking through entrance, greeting s receptionist and going straight into the specialist office->and, if she’s lucky, she does get admitted at the end of business hours. Sometimes not, “come tomorrow”.

Waiting lists are terribly long in China, but the wealthy skip it by going to private clinics. Incidentally, this is the same thing done by the Finnish. And while this is a loose ancedote, my mother who suffered an accident in the United States was immediately misdiagnosed, provided incorrect treatment, and almost suffered septic shock(perhaps because the hospital was overworked?); we rushed her back to Asia, where she had much better care for less than a tenth of the price.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I'm familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

This does not describe China at present, or for that matter, Russia to the best of my knowledge.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I’m familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

Agree.
My point exactly.

And, I do stand by the assertion that Russia is of that type.
Due to size, RESOURCES and inherent resilience of Russians, the regime in Moscow can accomplish a lot. But, much less than it could if it weren’t for that “crippling” factor.
Isn’t Russia probably the only country in the world which wouldn’t need to import almost anything?
And, still…….
I mean, this conversation has been regurgitated thousands of times in much more serious places than a Web site.
Fact are facts.
Now, WHY is that, well, I’d leave it to the Russians.
My personal take is that the West resolved THAT issue with Reformation. But, of course, just an opinion.

Take “unified foreign policy” for example.
Would you call the approach to Ukraine unified…competent…..fast enough?
Putin’s regime is a fine balancing act between several factions; some of them totally opposite.

But, at the end of the day that’s not important.
What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.
And, as I said before, either people migrating from Russia to the West are idiots, or they have good reasons.
Maybe we should ask them why they do it?

As for China, similar really, for the topic of this discussion………alternative.
I work with a LOT of Chinese. I speak with several persons who work in China.
Not…….a…feasible….alternative.

But, at the end of the day that’s not important. What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.

This is a popular standard but relying on the wisdom of borne from the collective stupidity of the masses is silly as heck - I've implied it before but perhaps should restate it more clearly again.

Its perhaps true that you get more "participation" from individual preferences toward a system, however, it doesn't mean that its actually good for them. The revealed individual preferences for the majority, for two examples, have been atomization and obesity. In psychological terms, these can be defined as a "choice for autonomy" but at the same time, it results in higher stress and mental illness as lowered interdependence damages various social support systems - there are studies of immigrants to the West which have shown specifically this preference. As for obesity, you hardly need me to provide sources for that.

The entire notion that what's positive or true good can be found by the decisions of relative short-time preference individuals is compelling only in a childish way; if it was truly so, then companies would be run by mass votes and the Athenian military effort to elect officers by popularity contests would be a great success.

When even the notion of free will is questionable, all other things relating to that are too. If a narco-state developed a compelling addiction to one of their compounds that led to complete and blind obedience while in bliss, we would surely find their numbers gradually increasing, and many people choosing to go that way. That the Western media deploys similar memetic narcotics through numbing pop culture successfully isn't really any greater point of pride than any other variation of it, theological or otherwise.

As for China, I regularly visit there and have family in there. My "revealed preference" if you wish to know, is that I would rather have my wife deliver our children there after seeing how badly the medical system here messed up for my mother and already have made preparations for that.

And your claim about corruption in Armed Forces is supported exactly how? From media?

I hope you are as perceptive as lacking fine touch in discussions.

We both know that we can “get” a unit in 5 minutes flat just by looking at how they do (or not do) certain things.
Any size…
We can see, in instant, past “appearances”.
Small things civilians/amateurs simply don’t notice even if you point them to.

And we both know that no armed forces are better than a society they belong to.

Or, the organizational culture of armed forces is always the same as CULTURE of the society they belong to.

Work ethic……respect of rule of law….corruption……working relationships..stuff like that.

Now, true, one CAN isolate a small special force unit and have it up to very high standards regardless how shitty a society is.
Even a small expeditionary force.

I asked you a very specific question–based on what you make your conclusions about corruption in modern Russian Armed Forces. The question is extremely pointed. You have a luxury of hiding behind your moniker–key parts of my background are made public. So, in the end it comes down to sources–whose better. Mine are better and on the order of magnitude, so I call your BS, because know current state of the affairs in Russian Armed Forces better than most Western “analysts”. So, what being perceptive has got to do with it? You respond with platitudes of this nature:

We both know that we can “get” a unit in 5 minutes flat just by looking at how they do (or not do) certain things. Any size… We can see, in instant, past “appearances”. Small things civilians/amateurs simply don’t notice even if you point them to.

So, even if true, how this all relates to the current state of the affairs in Russian Armed Forces regarding “corruption”. So, my lack of “fine touch” is explained extremely easy–I do not talk in “fine touches” anymore, I prefer broadsides since for three years observed how a bunch of (in this particular case American) “Russia experts” almost helped to unleash a WW III since they have no a freaking clue about most things Russia related, least of all about her military. Why it is so–is a separate issue, but the empirical evidence of utter incompetence of this “expert” environment is overwhelming. “Expert community” which is “consulted” by people such as you is bound, together with other reasons, fail time after time to be both situationally and tactically aware, it is also bound to be making idiotic decisions based on primitive assumptions. And if this may have bad consequences in some cases, in case of Russia it may have catastrophic ones for everyone involved. If you want to discuss Plans of Combat Training, instilling of ZNU, moral-will qualities and how it translates in combat performances–it is all fine and dandy but what about “corruption”? Are Russian Air-Space Forces in Syria, who maintain an outstanding operational tempo and effectiveness, corrupt? How’s about corruption in Pskov or Ivanovo Divisions, I would love to hear from you about corruption in the Naval Nuclear Deterrent, especially on the latest Borey-class SSBNs. How’s corruption going in General Staff, especially GOU and GRU–are they strongly or moderately corrupt? These are the questions I asked you to provide the answers for.

And we both know that no armed forces are better than a society they belong to.

I can tell you right this moment that you are not necessarily well-informed on this issue.
I am not going to engage with you here on the issues of the Social Dimension of Strategy, subject of much love by Sir Michael Howard, but I can tell you one thing–in terms of combat capabilities, from human to technological, to whatever else–modern Russian Armed Forces are second to US, in some key defensive issues–they are unrivaled, especially in weapon systems’ design. So, I guess you have to stick then to your dictum (if I agree with it or not–is of secondary importance here) and go full corollary here. If you want to challenge this fact–sure, go right ahead. But still, I (and I repeat myself) I would like to hear on corruption in modern Russian Armed Forces.

You have a luxury of hiding behind your moniker–key parts of my background are made public.

Agree.

So, in the end it comes down to sources–whose better. Mine are better and on the order of magnitude, so I call your BS, because know current state of the affairs in Russian Armed Forces better than most Western “analysts”.

That assertion has two issues.
We do not know your sources (we can both play the game).
You could be biased (now, me too of course). That’s why we are presenting our thoughts here for people to choose. Free will.

So, even if true, how this all relates to the current state of the affairs in Russian Armed Forces regarding “corruption”.

It relates to a quality (or lack of it) of a particular unit/HQ/entity within military structure.

…the empirical evidence of utter incompetence of this “expert” environment is overwhelming. “Expert community” which is “consulted” by people such as you is bound, together with other reasons, fail time after time to be both situationally and tactically aware, it is also bound to be making idiotic decisions based on primitive assumptions.

Agree, actually.
Although, not quite sure was/is that incompetence or pure moral and intellectual cowardice (MONEY). There is also a practice of excluding those who “rock the boat”. And, on top of it, the powers that be often simply reject expert opinion. “We create own realities” quote is well known.
BTW, I do not consult “experts” or experts. I watch, read, listen….speak with some people….and the most important, think. Based on own expertise and experience. And I do have some.

And if this may have bad consequences in some cases, in case of Russia it may have catastrophic ones for everyone involved.

Agree.
M.A.D. is still possible. But, that’s the only threat I see coming from Russia. True, one can say “are you insane….ONLY threat”, but that’s the game isn’t it?

.. what about “corruption”?..

Glad you asked.
See, I haven’t read your bio at all; don’t care about those things really.
I ASSUME you had a command of a tactical unit.
Personnel: do you get the best or you get “friends of friends”. Can you push them to deliver or not (you know…the general/politician friend/relative/whatever)?
Weapons, equipment: have the maintenance cycles been done right or not. You know…accumulators…batteries (radios, optics)….Engines overhaul(s), have they been done right? Proper parts, quality work done well? Or not? Little things…….air filters, oil filters…tires…Can you push the depo/maintenance/logistics to DELIVER or not (again, “friend of a friend” as with personnel)?
Training: have you and/or your unit been assessed correctly, or not? You know how careers/promotions get affected by good or bad evaluations. Was it based on “what you did or know” or…”who you know”? Again…little things.
And, then, the mission: do you trust your superior(s)? With your life (and lives of your men)? Have they been promoted to that position by merit……..or not?
Combat: do you trust howitzers won’t shower YOUR leading platoons because of substantial ammunition? Or expertise of the crews? Do you trust adjacent tactical units they’ll do what they have to do? No “friend of a friend there” with promotions above their capability? Will the superior sacrifice you and your unit for his medal/promotion or not?
I could go on, but you got the drift.

Are Russian Air-Space Forces in Syria, who maintain an outstanding operational tempo and effectiveness, corrupt? How’s about corruption in Pskov or Ivanovo Divisions, I would love to hear from you about corruption in the Naval Nuclear Deterrent, especially on the latest Borey-class SSBNs. How’s corruption going in General Staff, especially GOU and GRU–are they strongly or moderately corrupt? These are the questions I asked you to provide the answers for.

How’s corruption going in General Staff, especially GOU and GRU–are they strongly or moderately corrupt?

—-ah…….now……..I BELIEVE they are more than above. Are you going to ask me for proof?

Now, all those above are in essence the best outfits of Russian armed forces.

Anyway, we can play this ad nauseam.

My main point is that the armed forces are, in AVERAGE, of the same quality, in any society, as the society itself.

.. modern Russian Armed Forces are second to US, in some key defensive issues–they are unrivaled, especially in weapon systems’ design.

Agree actually..ha…ha….ha…
Now, inherent quality wise I still believe that Brits are the second (and in a lot of areas actually the first in the World) , but, of course, size wise/pure power, I agree with you. Funny.
M.A.D. again………

As for design, you do realize there is a difference between design and delivery of that to the troops on the ground. Again, maintenance/logistics, CIVILIAN infrastructure, etc.

You pretty much answered the question–you are completely out of touch, sorry.

M.A.D. again………

Not even close. Not even in the same universe–namely pp. 26 of Russia’s latest (2014) military doctrine, namely strategic containment by conventional means, namely stand-off HPW (High Precision Weapons). Hysteria in US media started not even when Russian VKS launched operation in Syria. Hell broke loose on 7 October 2015–I can tell you even what “broke” it loose–3M14 and X-101. Per UK–UK has NO own nuclear deterrent, even Royal Navy’s SSBN carry Trident-II SLBM, which can not be launched without US authorization. The same goes to TLAM. As per Army, UK doesn’t have any serious one, while Russia since 2007 produced in combat aviation alone at least twice more modern combat aircraft than UK’s Royal Air Force has technically able to fly currently. There are only TWO powers in the world capable of producing state-of-the-art long range HPWs capable to conventionally achieve strategic objectives. Now, as a hint–US, which is one of that powers, is not even close to the scope and capabilities of Russia’s arsenal of stand-off weapons ranging from anti-shipping missiles (which China buys like crazy) to something like X-101 and coming extended range (up to 10, 000 kilometers) of newest generation cruise missiles. That is what this all fuss is about. I hope you can now easily calculate the weight of head-on-response (Ответно-Встречный) conventional missile strike by Russia should some nut-job continues to think that Russia is Yugoslavia circa 1999. Conventionally even today Russia can rearrange stones in lower 48 (OK, 30-35) without Russian bombers leaving Russia’s air space or Russian SSGNs entering SOSUS and strong ASW (including patrol aviation) areas. I am not talking about Europe here–that is really easy. By 2025? Hell, if you would have read my comments of 5-6 years ago I wrote constantly about the fact that D.C. has no idea what it is dealing with. What can I say–here we are. I am pretty sure there is some X-101, in a good tradition of WW II Red Air Force, with names of Robert Kagan or Max Boot on it.

Now, inherent quality wise I still believe that Brits are the second (and in a lot of areas actually the first in the World)

French would eat UK without any sauce, chew them and will spit them out–this is not a compliment, this is a diagnosis, a terminal one. In some sense it is painful to look at once respectable Armed Forces.

I am a "little tactical" fellow.
How to take that hill or a little town, how to synchronize artillery (a couple of batteries only) with a bit of armor, meager air support and bunch of foot soldiers, combat support, logistics. Simple basics.

You talk about strategic deterrent with SSBN, SOSUS etc....I am focused on quality of team/squad leaders , spare parts for the crew served weapons, vehicles and armor, quality of PRODUCTION and MAINTENANCE of our gear/equipment/ammo/fuel/consumables, trust within chain of command within brigade only, and last but definitely not least, expertise of an individual trooper. Small stuff.

I just got an impression (and could be wrong of course) that all strategic genius isn't worth much without a very good fireteam leader crawling "down there".

So, where you see strenght, I see weakness.
And the other way around I guess. Both of us.

NO own nuclear deterrent, even Royal Navy’s SSBN carry Trident-II SLBM, which can not be launched without US authorization.

British Trident subs such as HMS Vengeance only carry a fraction of their potential warhead load. The idea was obviously to gave a bit of credibility to America getting into a nuclear war over Europe by making it a British decision. The point of Britain having Trident is that they can start a nuclear war between Russia and America, because if Britain shot off a nuclear broadside on Russia (the sub would fire all its missiles if it fired at all) Russia would certainly hit the US in retaliation. While America would be treated as if it was behind (ordered/authorised) any British Trident strike on Russia and the US would be nuked in retaliation, in fact a captain in the British navy and his officers on board the sub could have taken the decision without reference to anyone else

Anyway, on Britain's Trident subs, the Americans have no say. The British government is the supreme authority, but the captain with assistance from some of the crew can fire the missiles, and they are authorised to do that without authorization from anybody else--in certain circumstances.

The parts of the US “Deep state” have been quite aware of “globalist” effect on the quality of the US armed forces.
Negative effect of course.

All that globalist/liberal agenda was/is seen as detrimental to the quality, hence the power, of the US armed forces.
Diversity, sensitivity, political correctness, race/gender agendas, all that was seen and is seen as bad for the military.
Most of Israeli firsters share the sentiment.

They were pushing and are behind Trump.

The situation is actually insane.

The globalists need US military to deliver their agenda to the rest of the world. At the same time they really weaken the military (probably aren’t even aware of that but that’s different matter). So it’s less and less capable of delivering what they want.

US firsters don’t like globalist agenda (competing elites……).
But they work on strengthening US military. Which is what globalists need.

You pretty much answered the question--you are completely out of touch, sorry.

M.A.D. again………

Not even close. Not even in the same universe--namely pp. 26 of Russia's latest (2014) military doctrine, namely strategic containment by conventional means, namely stand-off HPW (High Precision Weapons). Hysteria in US media started not even when Russian VKS launched operation in Syria. Hell broke loose on 7 October 2015--I can tell you even what "broke" it loose--3M14 and X-101. Per UK--UK has NO own nuclear deterrent, even Royal Navy's SSBN carry Trident-II SLBM, which can not be launched without US authorization. The same goes to TLAM. As per Army, UK doesn't have any serious one, while Russia since 2007 produced in combat aviation alone at least twice more modern combat aircraft than UK's Royal Air Force has technically able to fly currently. There are only TWO powers in the world capable of producing state-of-the-art long range HPWs capable to conventionally achieve strategic objectives. Now, as a hint--US, which is one of that powers, is not even close to the scope and capabilities of Russia's arsenal of stand-off weapons ranging from anti-shipping missiles (which China buys like crazy) to something like X-101 and coming extended range (up to 10, 000 kilometers) of newest generation cruise missiles. That is what this all fuss is about. I hope you can now easily calculate the weight of head-on-response (Ответно-Встречный) conventional missile strike by Russia should some nut-job continues to think that Russia is Yugoslavia circa 1999. Conventionally even today Russia can rearrange stones in lower 48 (OK, 30-35) without Russian bombers leaving Russia's air space or Russian SSGNs entering SOSUS and strong ASW (including patrol aviation) areas. I am not talking about Europe here--that is really easy. By 2025? Hell, if you would have read my comments of 5-6 years ago I wrote constantly about the fact that D.C. has no idea what it is dealing with. What can I say--here we are. I am pretty sure there is some X-101, in a good tradition of WW II Red Air Force, with names of Robert Kagan or Max Boot on it.

Now, inherent quality wise I still believe that Brits are the second (and in a lot of areas actually the first in the World)

French would eat UK without any sauce, chew them and will spit them out--this is not a compliment, this is a diagnosis, a terminal one. In some sense it is painful to look at once respectable Armed Forces.

I am a “little tactical” fellow.
How to take that hill or a little town, how to synchronize artillery (a couple of batteries only) with a bit of armor, meager air support and bunch of foot soldiers, combat support, logistics. Simple basics.

You talk about strategic deterrent with SSBN, SOSUS etc….I am focused on quality of team/squad leaders , spare parts for the crew served weapons, vehicles and armor, quality of PRODUCTION and MAINTENANCE of our gear/equipment/ammo/fuel/consumables, trust within chain of command within brigade only, and last but definitely not least, expertise of an individual trooper. Small stuff.

I just got an impression (and could be wrong of course) that all strategic genius isn’t worth much without a very good fireteam leader crawling “down there”.

So, where you see strenght, I see weakness.
And the other way around I guess. Both of us.

I am a "little tactical" fellow.
How to take that hill or a little town, how to synchronize artillery (a couple of batteries only) with a bit of armor, meager air support and bunch of foot soldiers, combat support, logistics. Simple basics.

You talk about strategic deterrent with SSBN, SOSUS etc....I am focused on quality of team/squad leaders , spare parts for the crew served weapons, vehicles and armor, quality of PRODUCTION and MAINTENANCE of our gear/equipment/ammo/fuel/consumables, trust within chain of command within brigade only, and last but definitely not least, expertise of an individual trooper. Small stuff.

I just got an impression (and could be wrong of course) that all strategic genius isn't worth much without a very good fireteam leader crawling "down there".

So, where you see strenght, I see weakness.
And the other way around I guess. Both of us.

The point of your article is Russia/Chinese coalition as a challenge to Pax Americana.

I believe that Westerners, in THAT game, should support Pax Americana.

You also, by definition, seem to believe that a monopoly would be able to deliver better services and be more responsive to its customers than a company having to compete against others, and in the event of a declining monopoly due to new entrants, customers should try to continue to support the former monopolist.

This is so contrary to everything we know about reality that it is mind-boggling, but as such is worth exposing, because like many truths, it sounds pleasant but it utterly ridiculous. The only reason to support the current West with all of its insanity is if you truly think that homomania, calling dickless men as women, and atomization of the individual from all standards are the highest ends of humanity.

If so, then you certainly may do so, as an enemy of all that is good. Its one thing to support traditional Western ideals; but what it has morphed into by now is simply and bluntly, antihuman cancer that surely will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The countries you describe are ones that are so fundamentally crippled by corruption that they would not be able to effectively pursue an unified foreign policy; I’m familiar with some countries like this and at that degree of rot, it wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything. Places where police stop people because they want bribes as a Christmas bonus are not places that have any form of genuine stability, and will probably feature pretty high crime for obvious reasons.

Agree.
My point exactly.

And, I do stand by the assertion that Russia is of that type.
Due to size, RESOURCES and inherent resilience of Russians, the regime in Moscow can accomplish a lot. But, much less than it could if it weren't for that "crippling" factor.
Isn't Russia probably the only country in the world which wouldn't need to import almost anything?
And, still.......
I mean, this conversation has been regurgitated thousands of times in much more serious places than a Web site.
Fact are facts.
Now, WHY is that, well, I'd leave it to the Russians.
My personal take is that the West resolved THAT issue with Reformation. But, of course, just an opinion.

Take "unified foreign policy" for example.
Would you call the approach to Ukraine unified...competent.....fast enough?
Putin's regime is a fine balancing act between several factions; some of them totally opposite.

But, at the end of the day that's not important.
What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.
And, as I said before, either people migrating from Russia to the West are idiots, or they have good reasons.
Maybe we should ask them why they do it?

As for China, similar really, for the topic of this discussion.........alternative.
I work with a LOT of Chinese. I speak with several persons who work in China.
Not.......a...feasible....alternative.

But, at the end of the day that’s not important.
What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.

This is a popular standard but relying on the wisdom of borne from the collective stupidity of the masses is silly as heck – I’ve implied it before but perhaps should restate it more clearly again.

Its perhaps true that you get more “participation” from individual preferences toward a system, however, it doesn’t mean that its actually good for them. The revealed individual preferences for the majority, for two examples, have been atomization and obesity. In psychological terms, these can be defined as a “choice for autonomy” but at the same time, it results in higher stress and mental illness as lowered interdependence damages various social support systems – there are studies of immigrants to the West which have shown specifically this preference. As for obesity, you hardly need me to provide sources for that.

The entire notion that what’s positive or true good can be found by the decisions of relative short-time preference individuals is compelling only in a childish way; if it was truly so, then companies would be run by mass votes and the Athenian military effort to elect officers by popularity contests would be a great success.

When even the notion of free will is questionable, all other things relating to that are too. If a narco-state developed a compelling addiction to one of their compounds that led to complete and blind obedience while in bliss, we would surely find their numbers gradually increasing, and many people choosing to go that way. That the Western media deploys similar memetic narcotics through numbing pop culture successfully isn’t really any greater point of pride than any other variation of it, theological or otherwise.

As for China, I regularly visit there and have family in there. My “revealed preference” if you wish to know, is that I would rather have my wife deliver our children there after seeing how badly the medical system here messed up for my mother and already have made preparations for that.

Well...this conversation started dragging of, but, you have put a decent effort here which deserve a modest reply.

We can get philosophical here and indulge in proving our point, feeling good about ourselves etc.
You are most likely aware of practice of old where students would debate defending one point of view and then switching side with their opponent. Or, "how many angels can sit on the top of a needle".

You could even be right here regarding free will, stupidity of masses etc.
That,though, sounds almost as our current paradigm overlords calling us "basket of deplorables" and we could be opening a couple of essential questions, like, WHO is to decide what is good for people (God, Pope, philosopher king, Fuhrer, Parliament..."educated elite"...etc...etc...). We know how much blood have been spilled throughout the history seeking and implementing an answer.

But, actually, all that doesn't matter in this game, and especially for this topic.

If Russians (not you...not me...Russians themselves) choose to move and live in the West in much greater numbers than the number of Westerners moving into Russia to live there, that's good enough argument for me.
The same for China.

But, to give credit where is due, I do sense a certain level of.......improvement....in your attitude towards an......opponent..... in a debate.
Perhaps a western influence?

"Strategic" type fellows in Russia talk down, or at minimum, talk at "cannon fodder".
As "elites" do in the East, Russia in particular, when communicating with serfs.

Which, interestingly enough, brought Trump into the White House. Little people just got sick and tired of being talked down and lectured.

Back to topic.

The point of your article is Russia/Chinese coalition as a challenge to Pax Americana.

I believe that Westerners, in THAT game, should support Pax Americana.

The point of your article is Russia/Chinese coalition as a challenge to Pax Americana.

I believe that Westerners, in THAT game, should support Pax Americana.

You also, by definition, seem to believe that a monopoly would be able to deliver better services and be more responsive to its customers than a company having to compete against others, and in the event of a declining monopoly due to new entrants, customers should try to continue to support the former monopolist.

This is so contrary to everything we know about reality that it is mind-boggling, but as such is worth exposing, because like many truths, it sounds pleasant but it utterly ridiculous. The only reason to support the current West with all of its insanity is if you truly think that homomania, calling dickless men as women, and atomization of the individual from all standards are the highest ends of humanity.

If so, then you certainly may do so, as an enemy of all that is good. Its one thing to support traditional Western ideals; but what it has morphed into by now is simply and bluntly, antihuman cancer that surely will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Well...geopolitics and the game of POWER isn't actually the same as consumer market.

I did say this before, but let's reiterate.

True, multipolar world is a very good idea. In theory. Like "no hunger". Or "no oppression/inequity", "why we just don't get along" and "love your neighbor".You know what they say about Hell and good intentions.It simply hasn't worked so far in history of humankind.It has always been a power ruling a realm, losing its power and another power taking over.Empires come and go.At the moment we have the American Empire (in all but name).If/when it goes down, save M.A.D. or "globalist N.W.O. dream", another Empire will take over.Personally, I wouldn't want that one to be as the current Russia/China or combination thereof.

I emphasize "current".

What's missing from this, now dragging conversation, is the nature of current Russia first and foremost, and then China.A minute dissection of the West is seen all over the place; similar attitude is rather missing re Russia.

And, really, the only important effort, how to actually improve a world of diminishing resources, change of demographics, attack on own culture, effect of automation, proliferation of WMDs etc.

Anyway......

I started this conversation asking a question why would Westerners want replacing current way of life with the way of life as in CURRENT Russia/China.

True, at the moment you are eating a piece of shit and it IS getting bigger each day.But, you'd change that to eating much bigger shit which will also be getting bigger?

But, at the end of the day that’s not important. What is really and only important is a life of an ordinary, average citizen.

This is a popular standard but relying on the wisdom of borne from the collective stupidity of the masses is silly as heck - I've implied it before but perhaps should restate it more clearly again.

Its perhaps true that you get more "participation" from individual preferences toward a system, however, it doesn't mean that its actually good for them. The revealed individual preferences for the majority, for two examples, have been atomization and obesity. In psychological terms, these can be defined as a "choice for autonomy" but at the same time, it results in higher stress and mental illness as lowered interdependence damages various social support systems - there are studies of immigrants to the West which have shown specifically this preference. As for obesity, you hardly need me to provide sources for that.

The entire notion that what's positive or true good can be found by the decisions of relative short-time preference individuals is compelling only in a childish way; if it was truly so, then companies would be run by mass votes and the Athenian military effort to elect officers by popularity contests would be a great success.

When even the notion of free will is questionable, all other things relating to that are too. If a narco-state developed a compelling addiction to one of their compounds that led to complete and blind obedience while in bliss, we would surely find their numbers gradually increasing, and many people choosing to go that way. That the Western media deploys similar memetic narcotics through numbing pop culture successfully isn't really any greater point of pride than any other variation of it, theological or otherwise.

As for China, I regularly visit there and have family in there. My "revealed preference" if you wish to know, is that I would rather have my wife deliver our children there after seeing how badly the medical system here messed up for my mother and already have made preparations for that.

Well…this conversation started dragging of, but, you have put a decent effort here which deserve a modest reply.

We can get philosophical here and indulge in proving our point, feeling good about ourselves etc.
You are most likely aware of practice of old where students would debate defending one point of view and then switching side with their opponent. Or, “how many angels can sit on the top of a needle”.

You could even be right here regarding free will, stupidity of masses etc.
That,though, sounds almost as our current paradigm overlords calling us “basket of deplorables” and we could be opening a couple of essential questions, like, WHO is to decide what is good for people (God, Pope, philosopher king, Fuhrer, Parliament…”educated elite”…etc…etc…). We know how much blood have been spilled throughout the history seeking and implementing an answer.

But, actually, all that doesn’t matter in this game, and especially for this topic.

If Russians (not you…not me…Russians themselves) choose to move and live in the West in much greater numbers than the number of Westerners moving into Russia to live there, that’s good enough argument for me.
The same for China.

The point of your article is Russia/Chinese coalition as a challenge to Pax Americana.

I believe that Westerners, in THAT game, should support Pax Americana.

You also, by definition, seem to believe that a monopoly would be able to deliver better services and be more responsive to its customers than a company having to compete against others, and in the event of a declining monopoly due to new entrants, customers should try to continue to support the former monopolist.

This is so contrary to everything we know about reality that it is mind-boggling, but as such is worth exposing, because like many truths, it sounds pleasant but it utterly ridiculous. The only reason to support the current West with all of its insanity is if you truly think that homomania, calling dickless men as women, and atomization of the individual from all standards are the highest ends of humanity.

If so, then you certainly may do so, as an enemy of all that is good. Its one thing to support traditional Western ideals; but what it has morphed into by now is simply and bluntly, antihuman cancer that surely will appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Well…geopolitics and the game of POWER isn’t actually the same as consumer market.

I did say this before, but let’s reiterate.

True, multipolar world is a very good idea. In theory.
Like “no hunger”. Or “no oppression/inequity”, “why we just don’t get along” and “love your neighbor”.
You know what they say about Hell and good intentions.
It simply hasn’t worked so far in history of humankind.
It has always been a power ruling a realm, losing its power and another power taking over.
Empires come and go.
At the moment we have the American Empire (in all but name).
If/when it goes down, save M.A.D. or “globalist N.W.O. dream”, another Empire will take over.
Personally, I wouldn’t want that one to be as the current Russia/China or combination thereof.

I emphasize “current”.

What’s missing from this, now dragging conversation, is the nature of current Russia first and foremost, and then China.
A minute dissection of the West is seen all over the place; similar attitude is rather missing re Russia.

And, really, the only important effort, how to actually improve a world of diminishing resources, change of demographics, attack on own culture, effect of automation, proliferation of WMDs etc.

Anyway……

I started this conversation asking a question why would Westerners want replacing current way of life with the way of life as in CURRENT Russia/China.

True, at the moment you are eating a piece of shit and it IS getting bigger each day.
But, you’d change that to eating much bigger shit which will also be getting bigger?

At the moment we have the American Empire (in all but name).
If/when it goes down, save M.A.D. or “globalist N.W.O. dream”, another Empire will take over.

That's silly. Historically, empires lack overwhelming and hegemonic power exception within a limited geographic area. Returning to that is the most likely result - indeed, one could argue that US efforts to maintain its influence had terrible cost consequences and even historical colonization was usually a net loss despite its nationalistic fervor.

Its quite the opposite of "let's all get along," its the natural result of multiple forms of existence jockeying for advantage and a competitive pressure which is generally salutary as a whole for all involved.

Chinamerica is coming about because they can make money together, and because they are not any threat to each other,. Russia cannot help but be a threat to both it will be frozen out, but it cannot stop the dominant narrative changing to one that ends with no Russia.

“We live in a Philip K Dick world now. The technology-led, military-led big names like Asimov, Robert Heinlein and Arthur got it dead wrong. They were all strong on the military as subject matter, on space wars, rational futures – essentially, fascist futures – and none of these things really matters today. It’s Dick and people like Frederik Pohl and Alfred Bester who were incredibly successful in predicting the future, because they were interested in social change, ecology, advertising. Look at Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google . . . These are Philip K Dick phenomena.”

Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind “It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate,” he said.”Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.” [...] “We cannot quite know what will happen if a machine exceeds our own intelligence, so we can’t know if we’ll be infinitely helped by it, or ignored by it and sidelined, or conceivably destroyed by it,” he says.

Seeing as we are the only technology-capable civilization extant, either Steven Jay Gould’s theory intelligent life as a fluke (Wonderful Life) is right, or the Singularity will inevitably destroy Russia and everything else too.

You pretty much answered the question--you are completely out of touch, sorry.

M.A.D. again………

Not even close. Not even in the same universe--namely pp. 26 of Russia's latest (2014) military doctrine, namely strategic containment by conventional means, namely stand-off HPW (High Precision Weapons). Hysteria in US media started not even when Russian VKS launched operation in Syria. Hell broke loose on 7 October 2015--I can tell you even what "broke" it loose--3M14 and X-101. Per UK--UK has NO own nuclear deterrent, even Royal Navy's SSBN carry Trident-II SLBM, which can not be launched without US authorization. The same goes to TLAM. As per Army, UK doesn't have any serious one, while Russia since 2007 produced in combat aviation alone at least twice more modern combat aircraft than UK's Royal Air Force has technically able to fly currently. There are only TWO powers in the world capable of producing state-of-the-art long range HPWs capable to conventionally achieve strategic objectives. Now, as a hint--US, which is one of that powers, is not even close to the scope and capabilities of Russia's arsenal of stand-off weapons ranging from anti-shipping missiles (which China buys like crazy) to something like X-101 and coming extended range (up to 10, 000 kilometers) of newest generation cruise missiles. That is what this all fuss is about. I hope you can now easily calculate the weight of head-on-response (Ответно-Встречный) conventional missile strike by Russia should some nut-job continues to think that Russia is Yugoslavia circa 1999. Conventionally even today Russia can rearrange stones in lower 48 (OK, 30-35) without Russian bombers leaving Russia's air space or Russian SSGNs entering SOSUS and strong ASW (including patrol aviation) areas. I am not talking about Europe here--that is really easy. By 2025? Hell, if you would have read my comments of 5-6 years ago I wrote constantly about the fact that D.C. has no idea what it is dealing with. What can I say--here we are. I am pretty sure there is some X-101, in a good tradition of WW II Red Air Force, with names of Robert Kagan or Max Boot on it.

Now, inherent quality wise I still believe that Brits are the second (and in a lot of areas actually the first in the World)

French would eat UK without any sauce, chew them and will spit them out--this is not a compliment, this is a diagnosis, a terminal one. In some sense it is painful to look at once respectable Armed Forces.

NO own nuclear deterrent, even Royal Navy’s SSBN carry Trident-II SLBM, which can not be launched without US authorization.

British Trident subs such as HMS Vengeance only carry a fraction of their potential warhead load. The idea was obviously to gave a bit of credibility to America getting into a nuclear war over Europe by making it a British decision. The point of Britain having Trident is that they can start a nuclear war between Russia and America, because if Britain shot off a nuclear broadside on Russia (the sub would fire all its missiles if it fired at all) Russia would certainly hit the US in retaliation. While America would be treated as if it was behind (ordered/authorised) any British Trident strike on Russia and the US would be nuked in retaliation, in fact a captain in the British navy and his officers on board the sub could have taken the decision without reference to anyone else

Anyway, on Britain’s Trident subs, the Americans have no say. The British government is the supreme authority, but the captain with assistance from some of the crew can fire the missiles, and they are authorised to do that without authorization from anybody else–in certain circumstances.